Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

H.M.S. "Jaguar "

Mr. Driberg: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the cost of construction of H.M.S. "Jaguar"; what mechanical defects have been found in her; whether these have been repaired, and at what extra cost; and what the future use of this ship is to be.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): As was shown on pages 226–227 of the current Navy Estimates, the estimated building cost of H.M.S. "Jaguar" was £3,772,000.
Shortly after commissioning the lubricating oil proved gritty, and her main engines were contaminated. The necessary repairs are being put in hand but, pending further investigation, no estimate of the cost is at present available.
When repaired H.M.S. "Jaguar" will resume here place in the squadron which provides the frigates on the South Atlantic and South America station.

Mr. Driberg: Could the Civil Lord say whether a court of inquiry into this strange mishap has been held and what the findings of that court were?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: A board of inquiry has been held and we are at present considering its findings.

Admiralty Houses, Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how much will be spent, and how many employed, in the improvement of Admiralty houses and related services in Scotland in the current year.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We expect to spend over £50,000 in the current year on the improvement, repair and redecoration of existing Admiralty houses in Scotland. We shall employ approximately 75 men, including supervisors, directly on this work.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Civil Lord aware that there is some appreciation in Crombie, in my constituency, of what has been done in the way of housing but, in view of the unemployment which is still quite considerable there, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to re-examine the possibility of increasing the number of personnel employed on improvement work, particularly on the outside environment of the houses?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly have a look at that, but we have a programme already going ahead on improving the houses in Crombie and Beith, and I will write to the hon. Member on the matters which he raised recently in a letter to me.

Nuclear-Powered Missile-Firing Submarine

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how long he estimates that it would take British dockyards to complete a nuclear-powered missile-firing submarine in the event of Polaris missiles being obtained from the United States of America.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is impossible to give a reliable estimate. The "George Washington" will have taken about three years from keel-laying to become operational. We should take considerably longer partly because for us this would be a new type of ship and partly because there is no shift working in British shipyards.

Mr. Wall: Could not the time be reduced by fitting Polaris to a conventional submarine? In any case, would not my hon. Friend agree that such a submarine is likely to be in commission before our bomber force is likely to be equipped with Skybolt and would it not be cheaper to do this than to re-equip our bomber force?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot answer that rather hypothetical supplementary question but, on the matter of comparative cost, I will look into my hon. Friend's


point about the possibility of fitting Polaris in the conventional type of submarine.

Mr. H. Hynd: How can the Civil Lord say that building a nuclear submarine will take us longer than it took the Americans? As they were doing something new, is not their experience available to us to enable us to build a submarine in less time than it took them to build one?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, but when another nation takes on a very original form or new type of ship it is also likely to have to learn certain new techniques and, as I have said, we have no shift-working in Britain, while the Americans in their crash programme worked shifts throughout.

Mr. Chetwynd: But has not a decision been taken to lay down a new submarine for this purpose?

Royal Dockyard (Apprentices)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many apprenticeships were available, and accepted,

THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE NUMBER OF CRAFT APPRENTICE VACANCIES AND THE NUMBER ENTERED IN EACH OF H.M. DOCKYARDS AT HOME FROM 1955 TO 1959


—
Portsmouth
Devonport
Chatham


Vacancies
Entered
Vacancies
Entered
Vacancies
Entered


1955
…
…
…
410
340
367
367
322
306


1956
…
…
…
345
339
311
311
288
274


1957
…
…
…
301
284
221
220
267
260


1958
…
…
…
260
241
207
206
198
197


1959
…
…
…
270
254
227
226
189
189

in each of the royal dockyards for each of the last five years.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As the Answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. As I told the hon. Member on 30th March, we are increasing the intake of apprentices at Rosyth from 71 to 96—an increase of over a third.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Civil Lord satisfied that, despite that increase, Rosyth is getting a fair proportion of the total available. Has his attention been called to the number of unemployed boys in the Cowdenbeath-Dunfermline area and the fact that there are no vacancies whatsoever available for them? Will he take that into account when possibly he reviews this matter?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In terms of dockyard industrials, Rosyth has 11 per cent. of the industrials in our four naval dockyards and will have 12 per cent. of our apprentices next year. Therefore, it is getting its fair share, but I will make a note of the point which the hon. Member has made.

Following are the figures:

British Trawlers (Protection)

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to protect British trawlers fishing on the high seas off Iceland.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements are being made, following the breakdown of the Geneva Conference, for protecting British trawlers fishing on the high seas outside territorial waters recognised by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 28th April.

Mr. Wall: Would my hon. Friend make it quite clear that if a British trawler is fishing up to the four-mile limit and is interfered with by an Icelandic patrol vessel, she has the protection of Her Majesty's Navy?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot make that clear. If my hon. Friend refers to the original statement, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
The action of Her Majesty's ships will be decided on the spot. Naturally, if our vessels are seen by Her Majesty's ships to be molested by Icelandic gunboats, it will be up to Her Majesty's ships to take the necessary action." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 406]
I cannot go further than that at this stage.

Mr. Paget: Does not that suggest an innovation of very great constitutional importance? Is it not a basic constitutional right that our ships when on their lawful occasions on the high seas have a constitutional right to the protection of the Royal Navy, and is it being suggested that that right will be denied and taken away in this sort of off-hand way by a statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are not taking away any right. In an effort to create good will and to work towards a solution of this very difficult problem, following the Geneva Conference and the breakdown of that Conference despite the most patient and far-reaching desire of this nation to reach a solution, we are patrolling outside the 12-mile limit as

an earnest of good will, and I hope that our gesture will be matched by a gesture on the other side.

Mr. Paget: This is as constitutionally serious as suspending habeas corpus.

Mr. G. R. Howard: In view of yesterday's news that a British trawler has been allowed into Reykjavik and the fact that the Icelandic Government have dropped their own prosecutions for fishing offences during the dispute, might we not hope that at the present time there is some sign of a better understanding between Iceland and this country?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that it is encouraging that, for the first time, there has been a move in that direction, and I am sure that the Royal Navy, with its good sense and statesmanship, will continue to try to engender good will as it has done in the past.

Mr. Fletcher: Would not the Minister agree that, while we all regret the breakdown of the Geneva Conference and appreciate the more tolerant attitude shown by Iceland, pending some further conference and clarification it is essential to British interests that the Admiralty should assert its constitutional right to protect British trawlers without the three-mile limit?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have made this gesture in an effort to create good will. It is a worth-while gesture and it is encouraging that yesterday we received a gesture on the other side.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is it right that Ministers should say that the commanders of these naval vessels will exercise their discretion if there should be any incident between the three-mile and twelve-mile limit? Have not the commanders of these vessels the right to expect that some advice should be given to them by Her Majesty's Ministers as to what action they should take in the event of there being any trouble within this limit?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In a case like this it is probably some advantage not to make all these facts publicly known. These are complicated matters of international law, the rights of hot pursuit and so on, and I do not think that they can be dealt with very easily by Question and Answer.

Civilian Employees, Scotland

Mr. McInnes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the number of civilians employed by the Admiralty in Scotland at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Ross: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of civilians employed by the Admiralty in the United Kingdom is employed in Scotland.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: On 1st January the total number of civilians employed in Scotland by the Admiralty was 15,755. This represents 13·5 per cent. of the total Admiralty civilian manpower employed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. McInnes: I take it that the Minister is aware of the abnormal unemployment in Scotland. In view of the figures which he has just given, can he give us an assurance that the maximum concentration is being made to provide Admiralty work in Scotland?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have shown by my answer now—and had the earlier Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 been called I would have been able to show by them, too— that Scotland is getting a very fair and in fact more than fair proportion of the total amount of naval work.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Minister will appreciate that Scotland has suffered considerably from naval reorganisation and centralisation in the past. In one place of heavy unemployment, Greenock, we lost over 400 jobs. In any further centralisation of naval organisation will he centralise some of these establishments in Scotland instead of outwith Scotland?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree that the Torpedo Experimental Establishment moved in order to concentrate our under-water research at Portland, but that run-down is more than made up by the tremendous expansion of work going at the Dounreay Experimental Establishment, so, in gross, Scotland has gained immeasurably over the years as the result of Admiralty work.

Sir J. Lucas: Can my hon. Friend state the proportion of Scottish population as to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is it not in the region of 10 per cent.?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that Scotland's population is 10 per cent. of the United

Kingdom population, so on a purely proportional basis I suppose one would expect 10 per cent. of the work to go to Scotland.

Naval Training Establishments, Scotland

Mr. Hannan: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many naval training establishments are in Scotland; and what proportion of navy trainees, in any one year, receive their training in those Scottish establishments.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There are at present three training establishments in Scotland. Figures are not readily available of the proportion of the trainees who receive their training in these establishments during the course of a single year, but at the latest date for which figures are available 8 per cent. of all officers and ratings under training on shore in the United Kingdom were under training in Scotland.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Minister aware that a very small proportion of the total personnel is being trained in Scotland and that, as private enterprise is failing to provide employment, the Government could influence these affairs to see that Scotland gets more than its share of public services and public work?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The figures I gave were of the naval training establishments to which the Question refers. I thought that it was right to concentrate on establishments which undertake training only. There are in addition establishments like Lossiemouth and H.M.S. "Safeguard" at Rosyth and the submarine training at Faslane, all of which have training responsibility as well as other responsibilities. In all, the percentage I gave would be swollen by these extra figures.

Mr. Manuel: Can the Minister say what the percentage would be without the three establishments he has just mentioned? I think that the figure would be small and would not give us a parity with training establishments in England.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I cannot, because not all of these people at the other establishments are undergoing training. There is a strong element of training, especially in places like Lossiemouth.

Stores and Provisions (Scottish Purchases)

Dr. Mabon: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of navy stores and provisions purchased in the United Kingdom is purchased in Scotland.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am sorry that these figures are not available.

Dr. Mabon: Will the Civil Lord give an assurance that, in view of the fact that private enterprise is not playing its part in the development of Scottish economy and in particular in the production of consumer goods and manufactured goods, a proper phasing of the programme is done, so that the best possible bias is given to the purchase of these goods in Scotland?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly bear that point in mind. The last time we took a check was in 1953, when it was estimated that about 10 per cent. of United Kingdom purchases of all naval equipment and stores were in Scotland. It is impossible to break down the figures to find out exactly what is being done with food and other commodities.

Shore Installations, Scotland

Mr. Lawson: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the United Kingdom total of Admiralty expenditure on shore installations is spent in Scotland.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Approximately 15 per cent. during the last financial year, including expenditure on repairs, maintenance and married quarters. This represents an expenditure in Scotland last year of over £2 million.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Civil Lord bear in mind that in this connection Scotland is not to be thought of in terms of 10 per cent. of the population? Scotland covers more than one-third of the total surface of the British Isles and the coastline which has to be protected must be nearly half of Great Britain's coastline. Further, since these are the northern waters, which are considered open waters, we would expect that there would be very much more work done than is being done. Will the hon. Gentleman see what more he can do?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must say that I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity when, in the face of the most devastating facts which I have given, he finds a new yardstick with which to argue that Scotland is not getting its share. However, his argument will not bear examination.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my hon. Friend say what proportion of Navy recruits comes from Scotland and what proportion from the south of England?

Mr. Manuel: The best come from Scotland.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I cannot answer that supplementary Question without notice.

Mr. Kershaw: Is it not a fact that more than one-third of the surface of HANSARD is covered by Scottish Members?

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the Civil Lord realise that Scotland has 22 per cent. of the unemployment in the country as a whole? Does he also realise that Scotland's share of the shipbuilding industry as a whole is very much larger than its share of the work he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In a more serious vein, of course we understand. Various members of the Government in the last week have made it clear that we understand, sympathise with and are taking action about the problem of unemployment in Scotland. The outstanding figure for the Navy is that in 1950 in shipbuilding—this is tremendously important —Scotland got £2·8 million of work and this year is to get £15·1 million of work, which is a tremendous improvement.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recently announced expansion of the naval station at Lossi-mouth in northern waters and the building programme there in the next three or four years have been welcomed by the local community, particularly as similar stations in England have recently been closed down?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: indicated assent.

Clothing (Scottish Purchases)

Mr. Millan: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of clothing for the Royal Navy, in terms of cost, is purchased in Scotland.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The bulk of our purchases in this field are for made-up clothing, but of the 50 Scottish firms on our list 31 make hosiery and only 12 contract for made-up clothing; this represents 2½ per cent. of the total United Kingdom list. At present our orders in this field are much reduced because we are using up surplus stock, but nevertheless Scottish firms are taking 3 per cent. of our total clothing orders which in the last financial year represents £28,000 spent in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: Is not that percentage very low? Will the hon. Gentleman accept is as a principle that, in common with other Government Departments, the Admiralty should set an example in these matters and as far as possible place orders in areas of high unemployment, keeping Scotland particularly in mind in that respect?

Miss Herbison: Is the Civil Lord aware that many women in Scotland are unemployed and that the proportion is far greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom? Does he appreciate that, if the Admiralty would give at least a fair share of those orders to Scotland, many of these unemployed women could be employed in clothing firms?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If there are Scottish firms which are able to supply our needs but which are not on our list, I hope that they will apply to be put on the list, when they will receive offers to submit tenders for the clothing which we need.

H.M. Yacht "Britannia"

Mr. Lipton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when H.M. Yacht "Britannia" is due to return to the United Kingdom from the voyage commencing on 6th May.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: No date has yet been fixed.

Mr. Lipton: That is a rather surprising reply. In the circumstances, may I reserve critical comment on this Government expenditure until the honeymoon is over? Meanwhile, may I wish bon voyage to all who will be sailing in "Britannia" this week, not forgetting the 257 naval officers and ratings in whose welfare, of course, the Civil Lord is profoundly interested?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I make it clear that the 257 officers and ratings to whom the hon. Gentleman referred would be there in "Britannia"—in the same numbers if not the same personnel—and have had to be there ever since the decision was taken to build the Royal Yacht. The use of the Royal Yacht does not in any way affect the numbers and the pay going to these sailors.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since this voyage is to cost at least £1,000 a day, is it not possible that, if it goes on for an indefinite period, the Chancellor will have to have another credit squeeze? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he could make some money if after this much advertised ship was free of this venture it was put on the New York-Miami-Caribbean sea route, where it would be very popular among American millionaires who would be able to pay the cost of the ship?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member believes that by constantly repeating the figure he will be able to make it appear accurate and believable. However, his figure is absolutely wrong. It would be just as logical to ask what the cost of the salaries of the House of Commons staff was and then to charge it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ship's company of Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" deem it an honour to show the flag so effectively in the Caribbean?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: indicated assent.

Operations, Korea (Expenditure)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the total of British naval expenditure in Korea from the commencement of the war in Korea until the end of 1959.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is estimated that the cost of Royal Naval operations in support of the United Nations in Korea was about £11 million. No costs were incurred after the Armistice in 1953.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member used to say that the Labour Government were responsible for this, and I opposed it at the time. Can he say, now that Mr. Syngman Rhee's régime has disappeared, what we have got for this money?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should have thought that this was one of the most successful United Nations actions which had been instituted. It was brought to a success-full conclusion and tended to show that invasion and flagrant disobedience of international law do not pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Bank of England (Military Picket)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for War what contribution is made by the Bank of England towards the transport and pay of the military picket provided for the Bank.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions during the month of April the military picket has marched to and from the Bank of England; what alternative methods of transport were provided; and to what extent such transport is paid for from public funds.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The greatcoats and personal kit of the Bank picket are taken by a lorry in which the men also ride in wet weather, as on three occasions in April. The cost of the petrol is borne by public funds.
The Bank of England do not contribute to the pay of the guard, but make a separate allowance to the N.C.Os. and men.

Mr. Langford-Holt: While one appreciates the ceremonial functions of the Brigade of Guards being necessary, is it not quite wrong that the cost of this guard, which must be £10,000 a year in pay alone, should be borne by the War Office and not by the Bank of England, which, after all, is a commercial concern?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The men are needed at all events and it is wrong to suppose that they are employed only by virtue of the fact that a Bank picket is needed. The Bank makes an allowance to the men on picket, which is much appreciated by the men. My attention has been drawn to a diary of a field officer of the Brigade of Guards, who, writing in 1800 about this remuneration, spoke of "effusions of liberality" and
a gratuity flowing from the spring of beneficent minds venting themselves in munificence.

Mr. Lipton: We do not want to know about what happened in 1800. When is the right hon. Gentleman to make an end of this nonsense? Did not the Secretary of State hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday making a pledge to curb State spending? Could we not make a start with this balderdash?

Mr. Soames: The only expenditure which would not take place anyhow is the cost of the petrol of the lorry which takes the men's kit to the Bank of England, and that is not very great.

Royal Garrison Church, Portsmouth

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to restore the Royal Garrison Church, Domus Dei A.D. 1200, at Portsmouth which was bombed in 1941.

Mr. Soames: The Royal Garrison Church has had a long association with the Army and it would be the wish of many serving and retired soldiers that it should be restored. But only a small number of troops will be stationed in Portsmouth in future and I have concluded with regret that the heavy cost of rebuilding a garrison church for so few people could not be justified. We shall continue for as long as possible the arrangement whereby an Army chaplain conducts services in the surviving chancel of the building.

Sir J. Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only last week a burial service was held in this roofless church? Could not a claim be made under war damage at least for the church to be re-roofed, even if it is not restored?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. As this church stands on Crown land, it has no claim, for war damage.

Land, Shrewsbury

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish a comprehensive list of the lands held by his Department inside the Shrewsbury constituency of Shropshire, and the use which is made of this property.

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

Property
Function


Regular Army



Leaton
Command supply depot


Hook-a-Gate
Vacant—being sold


Ford
Vacant—being sold


Shrawardine
Former ammunition depot; mostly to be sold, but a small area to be kept for training.


St. Chads
Miniature rifle range


Shrewsbury:



Copthorne Barracks
Infantry depot


Shelton Fields
Married quarters


Monkmoor
Vacant—being sold


Harlscott
Ordnance sub-depot and temporary Army Information office.


Belle Vue Road
District headquarters


Swan Hill Court
W.D. land agent's office


Mardol 
Army information office


Belle Vue
Officers' mess


Castle Gates
Army information office (W.R.A.C).


Territorial Army



Church Stretton
Married quarter


Madeley
T.A. centre


Shrewsbury, Claremont Buildings
T. &amp; A.F. Association H.Q.


Drill Hall, Coleham
T.A. centre


Riding School, Coleham.
T.A. centre


Greenfields Camp
T.A. centre


Harlescott
Married quarters


Harlescott
Married quarter


Haughmond Hill
Training area


Kempseye
30-yard rifle range


Sundorne Close
Married quarters


Sundorne Road
Site for T.A. centre


Sundorne Road
Married quarters


Regular and Territorial Armies



Shrewsbury, Shelton Road Camp.
Married quarters and T.A. centre.

National Service Men (Release to Industry)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War why his Department refuses to consider the labour shortages of particular firms, jeopardising their production programmes, as grounds for releasing skilled men from the Army, whereas such grounds are considered adequate by hardship tribunals for granting deferment of call-up.

Mr. Soames: The circumstances set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in his Answer on 14th March may justify postponement of call-up. They do not justify a man's exemption

from National Service. Neither do they justify the release of men serving, unless some element of exceptional hardship has subsequently developed which might warrant a compassionate discharge.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question of exemption from National Service but of permitting the premature release of men who have served some time, in view of the urgent need for them in industrial production? In view of the fact that the Army is being put on a voluntary basis, and that the Ministry of Labour is becoming more liberal in this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter when it is clear that a man's skill is urgently needed by a particular firm?

Mr. Soames: Yes. Where a new situation developed after the call-up, which was not in existence at the time when the Minister of Labour said that the man could be called up and should no longer be deferred, then certainly we would bear these considerations in mind.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the ending of National Service, would the right hon. Gentleman now consider early release for people who wish to start their university careers this October?

Mr. Soames: I should require notice of that question, but at present we could not do that.

Royal Ordnance Factory, (Fazakerley)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the reduced activity at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Fazakerley, he will state his intentions regarding the full utilisation of the facilities at these premises.

Mr. Soames: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on 29th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews).

Mr. Pannell: Could my right hon. Friend say how many of the employees at this factory are established and how many are unestablished?

Mr. Soames: About 750 are established and about the same number un-estabablished. I have not the exact figures with me, but they are of that order.

Hutchison Committee (Report)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the report of the Hutchison Committee.

Mr. Soames: The report is being studied and I will make a statement as soon as I can; but because of the amount of detail this may not be for some weeks.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is increasing anxiety about the volume of work being done at Woolwich Arsenal? Could he give an assurance that no action will be taken without full consultation with the trade unions?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. All interested parties will be consulted before the Report is implemented.

Operations, Korea (Expenditure)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War the total British military expenditure in Korea, from the commencement of the war in Korea until the end of 1959.

Mr. Soames: The War Office share of the Korean Operations Pool Account was about £85 million.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall not throw away any more money in Korea?

Mr. Soames: There are at present eight British soldiers in Korea.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postage of Money (Registered Envelopes)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to bring to the attention of the public the fact that compensation will only be paid for loss of money in the post where that money is dispatched in the registered envelope specially provided by the Post Office for this purpose.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): This information appears in notices about the registration service exhibited at all post offices, in the Post Office Guide, and on the back of the certificate of posting given to people who post registered packets. It

is also given publicity from time to time in books of stamps and in Press and broadcast notices; and I am arranging for these means of publicity to be used more often especially at Christmas time. I also intend to have a special poster displayed at post offices.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady aware that I am very grateful to her for the action which she has taken in this matter arising from a case in my constituency, in which a constituent of mine was not aware of this provision? I believe that a large number of the public are not aware of it, and I certainly was not. Could she make sure that supplementary means of publicity are used and that her poster, when it is produced, is very large and very clear?

Miss Pike: I am very glad to give the hon. Lady that assurance. I agree that this is a matter which should have the most widespread publicity possible.

Collections, Darfield

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Postmaster-General if he will review the present system of collecting mail in the urban district of Darfield, near Barnsley, so that a collection of mail can take place at 8 p.m. or thereabouts from Monday to Friday, inclusive, and at 6 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.

Miss Pike: The services provided in the Urban District of Darfield are comparable with those in similar areas. I am sorry that I would not be justified in providing later collections on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Wainwright: I regret that reply. Does the hon. Lady realise that Darfield has a population of 6,500 and that it borders on Barnsley and Wombwell which have a collection three hours later than Darfield? Could the hon. Lady reorganise the route of the collecting van so that when it goes from Barnsley to Wombwell it can make a later collection at Darfield?

Miss Pike: Perhaps the hon. Member does not know that people wishing to post letters later than 5.20 p.m. on Monday to Friday can do so at the box at Low Valley sub-post office which is near Wombwell, three-quarters of a mile from Darfield sub-post office. Very few people


use that box. The number of letters posted in Darfield boxes from Monday to Friday after the last collection and before they are cleared next day averages nine at Darfield sub-post office, and two at Doncaster Road. We do not feel that the expenditure is justified.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Lady realise that the post office at Low Valley is right on the fringe of Womb-well and some way away from the centre of Darfield? Does she also realise that letters that are written in the evening are not posted until next day in Darfield because it is needless so to do, and that the collecting van which comes from Barnsley to Wombwell could easily be diverted round Darfield? [Interruption.]

Miss Pike: I regret that I cannot add anything to my reply.

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Telegrams

Mr. Ridley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will direct that all telegrams sent to an address, as opposed to a telephone number, be delivered by hand in a sealed envelope in the interests of privacy.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): When either the sender or the recipient specifies hand delivery, telegrams are delivered in sealed envelopes. Other telegrams are delivered by telephone when this is quicker or cheaper than by hand. This practice has been followed for many years and is, I think, in the best interest of users of the service.

Mr. Ridley: As telegrams are now very nearly the most expensive form of communication, does not my right hon. Friend realise that sometimes confidential and important news does reach the wrong ears, and that it would be much better if this news could always go to the addressee by hand, rather than to a telephone number?

Mr. Bevins: It is true that telegrams are expensive but if they were always delivered in sealed packets they would be even more expensive.

Mowmacre Hill, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General, in the light of the recent visit of the Assistant Postmaster-General, in company with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, to Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, and their discussion of the difficulties encountered by old-age pensioners and persons drawing family allowances arising from the lack of suitable post office facilities there, whether he will now give permission for another sub-post office to be opened.

Miss Pike: I have carefully thought over the points made by the hon. Member when we met, but for the reasons I gave him then, and have explained to him previously, I should not be justified in doing as he asks.

Mr. Janner: I gratefully acknowledge the walk which the hon. Lady took with me on Mowmacre Hill, but I would ask her to realise that the conclusions she formed on that occasion are not acceptable to the residents there. I appreciate her anxiety about the possibility of a case of mistaken identity. Was that really her reason for not pushing the twins up the hill, or was it because she realised that it would convince her that there is a case for a sub-post office in the constituency?

Miss Pike: The hon. Member and I have discussed this case fully. I regret I cannot add more to what I have already said. As for the twins, they had no need to come down the hill and there was therefore no need for them to be pushed up it.

Excavations, Great George Street

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Postmaster-General why the excavations in Great George Street, Parliament Square, are proceeding at such a slow pace, with no more than one or two workmen on one part of the job at a time only, and working only during normal hours, thus prolonging a major bottleneck at a point where traffic conditions are always difficult.

Mr. Bevins: I share my hon. Friend's concern at the interference with traffic in Great George Street. This work has consisted mainly of tunnelling; as many as fifteen men have been employed on-it,


mostly below ground. Work has gone on during evenings and weekends. After a suspension for the Royal Wedding the work will continue round the clock, and I expect it to be finished by the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Stereophonic Broadcasting

Mr. Boardman: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made in his experimental work on stereophonic broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: This is rather a long-term matter, but the British Broadcasting Corporation has been studying the problem for some years and has been making experimental stereophonic transmissions— which the public can hear by using in conjunction a television and a sound receiver—since October, 1958.
The industry is also experimenting with various systems and the Television Advisory Committee is studying the question. The biggest technical problem is to find a system capable of transmission on a single broadcasting channel which could be satisfactorily received on both stereophonic and ordinary receivers.

Mr. Boardman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the radio manufacturing industry confidently anticipate a stereophonic broadcasting system? Is he also aware that some manufacturers are already producing and selling equipment capable of being adapted for stereophonic reception? Will he keep the trade acquainted with any developments that take place?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. I agree with what the hon. Member says and I will do as he indicates.

Broadcasting (Future)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to announce the membership and terms of reference of the proposed committee of inquiry into the future of broadcasts.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that it is now some months since he

agreed that much needed to be done by way of legislation and the inquiry itself before the B.B.C. charter runs out and the Television Act expires? Why is there this delay? Is it true that he is having difficulty in finding people of standing who are not strongly opposed to commercial broadcasting?

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate all the considerations which the hon. Member has in mind, but at this moment I am not in the position to add to what I have said.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is only about ten years since we had a Royal Commission on this matter, whose advice was not followed? It would therefore seem unnecessary to have another full-scale inquiry. Further, if inquiries are in the air, will my right hon. Friend consider an inquiry in regard to the report in today's Daily Telegraph that the B.B.C. is usurping the functions of the I.T.A. in holding an inquiry into the financial structure of the television broadcasting companies, which is not the Corporation's business at all?

Mr. Bevins: So far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion of a Royal Commission. As for the report in this morning's newspapers about the activities of the B.B.C, that does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that, although he is not yet ready to make an announcement, he will be ready to make it next week?

Mr. Bevins: I am not prepared to go that far, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not allowing the grass to grow under our feet.

Captain Orr: Is it not true that all the facts in this field, technically and otherwise, are now very well known, and that the decisions involved are political, which means that there is no need even for a committee of inquiry?

Mr. Bevins: I only wish that what my hon. Friend has said was true. I have found the greatest differences of view among the experts, even on technical questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

R.A.F. Station, Acklington

Mr. Owen: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the Royal Air Force Station at Acklington, Northumberland, will be closed down; what future is planned for the station; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): We have at present no plans to close Acklington. We are examining the possibility of using it for another task when the fighter squadron now stationed there is disbanded in the autumn.

University of London Air Squadron (Flying Training)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) where the University of London Air Squadron will be carrying out their training this year; and when this training will take place;
(2) why the training of British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots for Boeing 707 aircraft at Saint Mawgan Royal Air Force airfield has caused other forms of flying training under Royal Air Force auspices at this airfield to be cancelled.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: The only training affected by the B.O.A.C. activities at St. Mawgan is that of the University of London Air Squadron, whose flying could not conveniently and safely be carried out at the same time. The squadron will hold its summer camp at the Royal Naval Air Station, Brawdy, during June and July.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that the University of London Air Squadron has had to go, especially as it was very desirous of going to Cornwall, and especially as the Royal Air Force in Cornwall was quite prepared to work out arrangements whereby both types of training could be carried out at the same time? Will my hon. Friend consider the question again?

Mr. Taylor: This B.O.A.C. training is a matter of considerable national importance. Since there were no formal Royal Air Force objections, we were able to agree to the Ministry of Aviation's request. As for the matter of disappoint-

ment, Brawdy was the second choice of the squadron in question, and I am sure that it will have a good and useful time there.

English Channel (Rescues by Helicopter)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of civilians rescued by Royal Air Force helicopters from the English Channel last year.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Thirteen, Sir.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend realise that this service is very much appreciated by coastal resorts? May we have his assurance that we shall have a similar Good Samaritan service this year?

Mr. Taylor: The Services are proud to give what help they can in these emergencies. There will still be a Royal Air Force detachment in Felixstowe and a Royal Naval detachment at Portland to do this work, but the primary job of Royal Air Force research and rescue helicopters is to rescue air crews, and we have to employ our rather limited resources with this fact in mind. After reconditioning the aircraft removed from this station, we shall take steps to reestablish the unit there as soon as possible.

Mr. de Freitas: Does not the Minister think that there is likely to be more assistance from helicopters round our coast this summer than in previous years? Surely the number of helicopters in this service is increasing?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. There are eight helicopter detachments round the coast. We have no reason to expect that the work coming on to them will be any greater than in the past, but if it is they will still be capable of fulfilling it.

Thor Missiles

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men have been trained in the operation and maintenance of the Thor missile.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: About 1,700.

Mr. de Freitas: Since the only plausible justification for Thors was the rôle they had in training people to operate Blue Streak, would it not be wise to cut our losses now and stop the Thor programme?

Mr. Taylor: Not at all. The Thor missile is at the moment a valid and useful part of the deterrent. The argument against Blue Streak is on quite a different time scale.

Mr. Collard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, however vulnerable Thor may become in the future, it is at present a very useful and effective weapon? Furthermore, it is a good example of interdependence in the alliance, which so many hon. Members desire.

Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I go further and say that the protective shield of Fighter Command means that Russian bombers could not count on knocking out Thor on the ground.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Committee on Rural Transport (Report)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Jacks Committee on Rural Transport.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) on 30th March.

Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, pending the receipt of the report, many firms are finding considerable difficulty in knowing where they are? Will he expedite things as much as possible?

Mr. Hay: I am aware of the difficulties of rural bus firms. The Committee is making extremely good progress now, and still hopes to be able to present its report in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Preston-Lancaster By-Passes (Motorway)

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Transport when he plans to complete that part of the north-south motorway through Lancashire which will link the Preston and Lancaster by-passes.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): The objections to the

draft scheme for this length of motorway are being considered. After I have made the scheme the other statutory processes and the acquisition of land inevitably take many months. Construction will be put in hand as soon as this preparatory work has been completed and the necessary funds are available. I cannot yet forecast a date for this.

Mr. Holt: Can the Minister give any date for the next statutory publication he is to make? Does he not agree that conditions in this area are now very bad? Can he give an assurance that there will be no unavoidable delay in the necessary process through which he has to go?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I can give that assurance. But Parliament has laid down the length of procedure which I am bound to obey.

Road Programme

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he expects to be able to announce his next five-year highway development plan before the Parliamentary Summer Recess.

Mr. Marples: I would refer to the national plan for roads announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 30th July, 1959. As to the size of the road programme, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) on 26th April.

Mr. Janner: In view of the serious conditions on our roads, has the Minister nothing further to add about his intentions for dealing with this terrible situation in respect of accidents of which this is one of the causes, if not the whole cause? Does he not realise that his plans will be subject to careful inquiry by those concerned with deaths and accidents on the road? So that he may be assisted in dealing with the problem, will he give us a further statement on this later?

Mr. Marples: I am bound to point out that this year we are spending £13 million more on roads than last year. The hon. Gentleman wants increased expenditure, but I notice that four weeks ago he voted against increased taxation, which is necessary for increased expenditure.

Mr. Mellish: We can cut out all this partisanship. The Minister himself said that the real answer to the problem was a new approach to spending money on roads and the building of roads. This needs a great deal of imagination on the part of himself and the Ministry. Have we not the right to expect from him in the very near future some idea of the plans that he has for dealing with this terrible problem?

Mr. Marples: My predecessor announced a very comprehensive road plan for about 8ve years. We are now engaged in completing that. We are spending more now than ever before in the history of this country.

Mr. Holt: Will the Minister agree that the programme means spending between £60 million and £70 million a year for the next few years? Will he agree that when he went to the Ministry he went with the idea of spending a great deal more money? Can he confirm whether he has asked the Cabinet for more money, and is it true that he has been refused?

Mr. Marples: Even if I could confirm it, I would not.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the figures the Minister has quoted of his expenditure, will he recall that the cost of congestion on the roads is now estimated at £500 million a year, and that the cost of road accidents is at least another £200 million to the nation? Will he calculate the capital sum on which £700 million is the annual interest?

Mr. Marples: Many people make these calculations, and I notice that there is an astonishing variation between the highest and the lowest cost. I do not accept them at their face value.

Mr. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Road Safety

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what study has been made, and what further study is being contemplated, of accident-proneness in relation to road safety.

Mr. Hay: Investigation of the question whether any relationship can be

established between the characteristics of individual drivers, and the number and type of accidents which they sustain, is on the long-term programme of the Road Research Laboratory. Some limited studies have been made by the Laboratory in collaboration with the Medical Research Council.
We will look into the possibility of an extension of research in this field by the appropriate bodies.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been investigations in the United States of America and in Germany which tend to show that about 20 per cent. of drivers are responsible for about 80 per cent. of accidents? If, in collaboration with the insurance companies, this could be confirmed in this country, it might be that we could put corrective measures on the 20 per cent. who are responsible for the great majority of accidents.

Mr. Hay: I am aware of the American experience in this matter. It is by no means conclusive, but we are asking the Road Research Laboratory to look into the possibility of further research in this country.

Trunk Roads (Whitsuntide Holidays)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of traffic, flow and safety, he will issue instructions that all minor obstructions and minor road works on the carriageway of trunk roads should be completed and cleared away by the Whitsun holidays.

Mr. Marples: I am sure that the need to avoid unnecessary obstruction of trunk road carriageways during Bank holiday week-ends is well understood by the local authorities who act as my agents, but I am arranging for all concerned to be reminded again before Whitsun.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reminder will be much appreciated by the thousands of people held up by minor obstructions during the Easter holidays?

Mr. Marples: Yes.

Mr. Mellish: Are we not between now and Whitsun to get from the Minister some indication of his intentions to try


to avoid the problems that will otherwise necessarily arise during the Whitsun holiday period?

Mr. Marples: I shall do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's request.

Sir L. Ropner: Will my right hon. Friend first make a genuine effort to clear away major obstructions such as tolls on toll bridges?

Mr. Marples: I heard a rumour around that there is a bridge in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency which has a toll on it. I will certainly look into that question.

Severn Bridge (Draft Order)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport how many abjections have been made to the draft Order, published on 28th January, providing for the alterations to public roads and footpaths on both sides of the new Severn Bridge; and when it is expected that they will be disposed of and the work proceeded with.

Mr. Hay: We have received seven objections to this draft Order. They are still being considered. These objections are not likely to affect the start of work on the Severn Bridge Scheme, but I cannot at this stage say when a start will be possible.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, because of industrial development each side of the Severn, this problem is growing more urgent? Will he take steps to hurry up the start of this work?

Mr. Hay: We are very anxious about this scheme, but we have to go through the process of hearing objections to the draft Order which we made in January. I hope that we shall get those objections cleared pretty quickly.

Parking Meter Zones (Doctors' Cars)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make regulations to facilitate parking of cars by doctors when visiting their patients in parking-meter zones.

Mr. Marples: The installation of parking meters has the effect, amongst others, of making visits in the area easier. I should not consider myself justified, in the circumstances, in creating

such special privileges as my hon. Friend suggests, even for members of the medical profession.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is virtually impossible for doctors to make use of metered spaces because they are already full? Will he not consider the possibility of making regulations for doctors when visiting patients, on the same lines as those for commercial vehicles? If not, what advice will he give to doctors as to the best way to make their rounds?

Mr. Marples: The British Medical Association has a scheme, which has been negotiated with it, which helps a great deal, but it must be remembered that doctors are not always visiting somebody in an emergency; there are many normal visits. It would be extremely difficult in practice to have a special privileged category of persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Cunard Liners (Replacement)

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the report of the Chandos Committee on the replacement of the Cunard liners "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth"; and when it is expected that the keels will be laid.

Mr. Hay: I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 30th March.

Mr. Bence: This is going too far. We have been asking this Question for twelve months. Is not the Minister aware that from time to time there are reports in the national newspapers, and there is one this morning, referring to the conclusions of the Chandos Committee's report? Where are the newspapers getting these reports when we cannot get any answers about the findings of the Chandos Committee in the House? Is the Minister aware that during the election campaign in Scotland the Prime Minister, and every other Tory candidate, said that these two liners would be replaced and financed by the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman let us know when they intend to do it?

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend is not responsible for imaginative reports that may appear in newspapers. We are awaiting the report of the Committee. When we receive it, we will give it early consideration. I cannot go beyond that today.

Dame Irene Ward: Am I to understand from my hon. Friend's remark that the Minister has not yet received the Committee's report? Is he aware that this is a matter that rather concerns us because, if I understand correctly, when the report is received it may not be published? Will he give a proper explanation whether we will know in detail what the Committee reports, when it reports?

Mr. Hay: We have not yet received the report. As regards publication, it has always been made clear to the House that this report would be a confidential one to Her Majesty's Government. We recognise the interest that the House has in the matter, and when the report is received we shall consider what statement can be made to the House.

Mr. Mellish: Is there any way of expediting the report? The Minister says that he recognises the urgency of the problem. Can he give the House any idea whether he can do anything about getting the report earlier?

Mr. Hay: I understand that the Committee is working extremely hard to let us have the report as quickly as it can. I am sure that at this stage no useful purpose would be served by pressing the Committee to complete it earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McMaster.

Mr. Bence: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, and in view of the fact that the newspapers seem to get more information than we do, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Strictly speaking I had called the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), so he ought not to be defeated by that notice.

Mr. McMaster: When implementing the report, will the Minister bear in mind that Harland and Wolff of Belfast have won contracts for the construction of

many magnificent liners, including the Canberra, the largest built in this country since the Queens were finished?

Mr. Hay: We are well aware of that, but the difficulty is that every shipbuilding area in the country feels that it should be entitled to have a claim on the building of these liners if, and I emphasise that, the Government decide to give the sort of assistance for which the Cunard Company has asked. All these questions must be deferred until we receive advice from the Committee. It is only fair to say we want that advice before we come to a decision.

CYPRUS

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) was kind enough to tell me that he wished to make an application to me. This is the moment for it, if he desires to make it.

Mr. W. Yates: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent and public importance, namely, the fact that negotiations are at a deadlock over the size and the extent of the future British bases in Cyprus.
I am to address myself to the merits of the case and to show why the House should consider it, and why you should consider it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should address himself not to the merits of the case, but to whether or not his Motion is in order under the Standing Order.

Mr. Yates: I will endeavour to address you, Sir, concerning the Standing Order and whether this Motion comes within that Standing Order.
First, is the matter definite? I think that nothing could be more definite than the report from Reuter last night, which was read by many hon. Members in the House, although it has not been in the Press this morning, that negotiations on the three As, administration, area and aid, have, in fact, come to a deadlock.
Is the matter urgent? I think it is a fact which is known to the House and


to people in Cyprus, as well as to the authorities, that the police force cannot be relied upon in a case of emergency. I think that it is also known to the authorities, as it is certainly known to me, having returned from the island, that Eoka did not hand in their arms, but handed in only a token—quarter strength. It is also known, from one of the district commissioners in the island, in the South, that the Turkish minority have likewise been receiving arms. In view of the fact that the day before yesterday General Grivas, in Athens, said that the President-elect of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, should resign, I consider that the matter is one of urgency.
Whether it is a matter of public importance, considering that we have troops in the island, that it is our main base in the Eastern Mediterranean and that it is the centre of the N.A.T.O. and CENTO military organisations, is for the House and you, Sir, to decide.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should bring his Motion to the Table.

Copy of Motion handed in.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks me for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent and public importance, namely, the fact that negotiations are at a deadlock over the size and extent of the future British bases in Cyprus.
I am greatly obliged to him for giving me private notice of his intention to do this. That is a great help to me, as it gives me a chance to consider the Motion. But I am afraid that it does not persuade me that I can properly accede to his application at this time. I regret that, owing to the fact of his courtesy, but there it is.

Mr. Yates: I very much regret to say that the House has no longer the right of impeachment. I myself consider this matter to be grossly mishandled, and I very much regret that the House has lost that power.

Mr. Speaker: Those are observations which I could not have allowed the hon. Member to make had I been in time to stop him.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order—

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I will receive these points of order, but I must deal with one hon. Member at a time.

Mr. Driberg: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, whether you will be good enough to indicate in what circumstances you would seek to test the feeling of the House on an adjournment Motion of that kind?

Mr. Speaker: If I think that the application to me is in order, then it is my duty to inquire at once whether the hon. Member has the leave of the House and to go through the further process. That is my duty, and I should seek to follow it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have no desire to press you, Mr. Speaker, on the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), but at the end of his observations to you the hon. Member for The Wrekin expressed the view that this House had lost the power of impeachment. May I ask, for the guidance of the House, whether that is so? It is an idea that has occurred to some of us from time to time as a useful power which the House of Commons ought to exercise rarely and with restraint, but which it ought never to abandon.

Mr. Speaker: I think, in fear of encouraging the hon. Member, that I had better look at that.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Old-Age Pensions

Mr. Spriggs: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th May, I shall call attention to the need to increase old-age pensions, and move a Resolution.

Atmospheric Pollution

Sir S. Storey: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th May, I shall call attention to atmospheric pollution, and move a Resolution.

Peppiatt Committee (Report)

Mr. Head: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th May, I shall call attention to the Peppiatt Report, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

DOCK WORKERS (PENSIONS)

Bill to exclude the operation of the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1940, and the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, in relation to provisions concerning pensions under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946, presented by Mr. Heath; supported by Mr. P. J. M. Thomas and Mr. N. Macpherson; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

PROTECTION OF TENANTS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide security of tenure for tenants of local authorities, authorities owning or managing new towns, housing associations, housing trusts, and other similar bodies.
The purpose of the proposed Bill is to give to council tenants and to tenants of housing associations and trusts the same protection as is now given under the Rent Acts to the tenants of controlled premises. Hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament will recall that this Bill was first introduced about a year ago by Mr. Niall MacDermot. He fell by the wayside at the last General Election, but those of us who were his colleagues confidently hope and expect that it will not be long before we see him back here again.
Broadly speaking, the effect of the Measure would be that to obtain possession of a council house without proof of suitable alternative accommodation the local authority would need to show to the satisfaction of a county court judge that the rent is in arrears, or that there has been some breach of the housing conditions. It would also have to establish to the judge's satisfaction that in all the circumstances it was reasonable to make the order.
Three years ago, when the Government carried through Parliament their Rent Act, 1957, it certainly appeared to most of us that they intended in due course to get rid of the whole structure of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and, therefore, of protection for controlled tenants. Now, as a result of public opinion and of constant pressure from these benches, they have retreated from that position. They retreated in 1958 when they introduced the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, which restored a certain degree of protection to those whose premises had been decontrolled under the 1957 Act.
In their General Election manifesto the Conservative Party said this:
In the next Parliament we shall take no further action to decontrol rents.
I will assume, at least for the purpose of my argument, that that pledge will


be kept. If so, it means that for the lifetime of this Parliament, and perhaps for many years longer, the protection given by the Rent Acts will continue. It follows that, unless we legislate in the sense which I now propose, we shall continue in force what has always seemed to me a very strange anomaly in our law.
The tenant of a private landlord is given almost complete protection. Unless he fails to pay his rent, or commits waste, or is a nuisance to his neighbours, or breaks some other condition, he cannot be turned out. On the other hand, the tenant of a council house has virtually no protection. He is completely at the mercy of his landlord. The council can give him a week's notice to quit for any reason which seems good to it, and for a reason which it is not even bound to state.
At the last General Election the party opposite made a good deal of play with the position of council tenants. They opened their campaign with a television broadcast by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which did nothing to add to the dignity of the contest. I will quote one passage from what the right hon. Gentleman had to say:
How about the nationalisation of houses? Of course, once again they do not call it nationalisation. That's a naughty word. They call it municipalisation. Well, they're planning to buy up every rent-controlled house in the country—five million or six million houses in all, at a cost—their own estimate—of £2,500 million. Every rent-controlled house in the country. Just interpret what it would mean. Every tenant a council tenant. Say you fell out with your local council or mayor. If you want to keep a dog, say, in a district where the council doesn't like animals. Or they may have ideas about your front garden you don't like. Well, you've nowhere else to go. This does mean the Socialist State getting control of our lives, our homes, the work of every one of us.
The right hon. Gentleman, in that broadcast, omitted to inform his audience that the policy which he was attacking specifically included provision for security of tenure for council tenants. No doubt the matter slipped his mind. In view of the concern for council tenants which he exhibited at the last General Election, I invite him to support the Motion if there should be a Division today. I further invite him, if the Motion should be carried, to use his influence with the Leader of the House to secure that time should be provided for all the stages of this Bill.
I do not suggest—no one would suggest—that the great majority of local authorities are not perfectly good landlords. No one would suggest that as a general rule they use their powers oppressively. But from time to time cases do arise where tenants are evicted, or more frequently threatened with eviction, not because they are bad tenants, not because they have failed to pay their rent, not because they have broken any condition of their tenancy, but because of some entirely extraneous consideration.
May I give the House three examples? A few years ago there was a very notorious case in a London borough. A council tenant was sent to prison and immediately thereafter his wife and family received notice to quit the council house. The eviction order on that occasion was made the subject of an appeal to the Divisional Court. It was then that Lord Goddard said that a local authority can get rid of a tenant if it does not like the colour of his eyes.
Let me give an example of a different kind, one from my own constituency. A year or two ago a number of council tenants were informed that they must not in future park their motor bicycles on the path or the plot of grass in front of their houses. There was nothing whatever in the housing regulations that forbade it, but when some of them persisted in the practice they were given notice to quit.
Let me give a third example which was brought to my attention only this morning by one of my hon. Friends. For obvious reasons, I will not mention the name either of the authority or the person concerned. A council house was occupied by a woman who for several years had been separated from her husband. She occupied the house with her children. She paid her rent regularly and the house was immaculately kept. However, the news got out that she was about to have an illegitimate child. She was then given notice to quit by the local authority. It was only the vigorous immediate intervention of the Member of Parliament concerned which caused that notice to be withdrawn. Our view on this side of the House is that it is not the business of local authorities to act as judges of conduct or of morals. Their only concern is to see to it that the conditions of the tenancies are observed.
We on this side will be very interested to discover the attitude of the party opposite to this Bill. Let me make it quite clear to hon. Members that this is intended in the nature of a challenge. If hon. Members opposite genuinely believe, as they say they do, in the protection of the citizen against unnecessary bureaucratic interference, they will assist us, as they can if they will, to pass the Bill through all its stages. If, on the other hand, they are against us, I hope that they will make that clear today. Let them use their majority to vote us down on this occasion, just as they did on the Suez inquiry five weeks ago. What I ask them is that they will not allow the Motion to pass today and then put up one of their number to shout "Object" Whenever the Second Reading is called.
Finally, I submit that the Bill embodies a principle of the highest importance, namely, the right of the ordinary citizen in his own home. This is something which goes a very long way back. Many hon. Members are probably familiar with a famous passage in a speech of Lord Chatham, two hundred years ago:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter —the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter!—all his forces dare not cross the threshhold of the ruined tenement.

No doubt it is a far cry from the ruined tenement of the eighteenth century to the council houses of today. But at least we ought to approach the problem in very much the same spirit. Whichever political party prevails at the next General Election, and whatever housing policy is adopted in the future, it is quite certain that for the rest of our lifetime several millions of our people will continue to occupy houses rented from public authorities. We in this House can, if we will, make certain that they shall not be capriciously dispossessed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Foot, Mr. Hale, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Mclnnes, Mr. Prentice, Mr. Reynolds, Sir L. Plummer, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Benn, and Mr. Donnelly.

PROTECTION OF TENANTS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)

Bill to provide security of tenure for tenants of local authorities, authorities owning or managing new towns, housing associations, housing trusts, and other similar bodies, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday. 20th May, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Orders of the Day — RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR REGISTRATION OF USERS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.)

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end to insert:
and in cases in which for reasons of national security it is in the Minister's opinion necessary that knowledge of the registration should be restricted, the Minister shall instead of furnishing such person with such a certificate as aforesaid furnish him with a certificate containing only such limited particulars and information as the Minister deems compatible with the public interest ".
This Amendment has been placed on the Notice Paper to discourage too much information being hidden behind the cloak of national security. I recognise that the Minister may be able to argue, and perhaps even to argue reasonably, that the type of radioactive material, or its degree of radioactivity, or even the type of waste being deposited might be traceable to certain bodies or organisations and to the type of operation from which the radioactivity or waste emanates. For instance, in the nuclear weapons field, people in the scientific world might be able to assess the type of operation taking place, having identified the kind of waste deposited.
Against that, I would ask the Minister to consider what might be a dangerous tendency, namely, that we might allow operations dealing with radioactive materials or we might allow accumulations of waste that are not being registered at all. They would be unknown to local authorities; they might be unknown even to local medical officers of health and to such bodies as water undertakings. If this national security excuse is used it might easily defeat the object which we have in mind. We think that the Bill could be riddled with a number of escape clauses if this were allowed, and we therefore ask that all operations and all accumulations and deposits of radioactive waste be registered.
We have tabled this Amendment in loose terms so that the Minister must first ensure that these matters are registered, and so that local bodies and particularly local authorities should be aware that certain matters could be withheld to ensure that national security is not infringed.

Mr. Harold Davies: I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment During the Committee stage, when we had quite a lot of help from the Minister, I believe I am right in saying that there was ground for hoping that there might be a sensible amendment of this Clause, and we on these benches have drafted this Amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to meet our wishes.
If we bow to this so-called need for national security, which is continuous and growing, local authorities may have areas under their jurisdiction in which radioactive isotopes are used and where all kinds of major changes and accidents may take place, and there might arise an emergency about which the local authorities would know nothing. It is well known—in fact, it has been brought out in a book on accidents and ill-health at work, written by John Williams and published quite recently—that in this field of radioactive isotopes and atomic energy and the development of nuclear power new and serious problems have arisen for both sides of industry, and it is imperative that the impact of these problems upon the existing accident prevention system should be recognised.
If information were hidden from responsible persons in public authorities, it could happen that in an area where radioactive isotopes and other radioactive substances were being used, the fire brigade and other persons might enter the area knowing nothing about the fact. We were almost promised in Committee that something would be done to deal with this point. Let us remember that scientists and Governments are fallible. I remember when we had the news about Zeta, some years ago. One great national newspaper devoted almost a whole edition to describe to the British public and to the world the achievements of Zeta. But the scientists were a little too eager and too early, and I say that with no intention to denigrate scientists.
The connection between what I have just said and what I wish to develop is this. Sometimes Governments may ask for information to be hidden in the interests of national security, when, in reality, there is no need for that information to be hidden. In fact, in the entire field of nuclear fusion and fission and of atomic energy the amount of "know-how" spreading through the world is such that I doubt whether any Government has much of a start over any other of the advanced Governments. At Geneva, a group of people are now meeting in private to discuss the effects on health of the growing radiation in the world. How can a local medical officer of health judge what effects radiation may have in certain areas if he does not know that radioactive substances are being used there?
Only last week we had an Answer from the Minister of Health of which the public seemed to take no notice. We were told that the amount of radioactivity in surface drinking water this year is double what it was at the same period last year. A Blue Book has just been published on nuclear-propelled ships. Radioactive isotopes are to be spread around in private and public industry. We are building atomic energy stations, and already radioactive fall-out has affected sugar beet, turnips, meat, live animals and milk. This being so, it is essential that local authorities, health officers, fire brigades and other protective bodies should have this information if isotopes are used in their areas.
4.0 p.m.
I beg the Minister to find a formula by means of which, in an emergency, he will be forced to give a mass of so-called secret information to the local authorities. It is done at present. Why are we so coy in this matter, when there is a growing amount of radiation in the world? I see that a body called the British Safety Council has recently produced a pamphlet on safety conditions for isotopes. This is a completely new range of uses of radioactive materials in which there would have to be a complete reorientation of the ideas of employers and of trade unionists on the use of these materials, and an organisation like the British Safety Council, in producing a pamphlet for laymen, is doing a great service to the community.
I ask the Minister to consider the Amendment in the spirit in which it has been drafted. If its wording does not suit him, I am sure that he could find other means by which the local authorities should have at their fingertips all the information that is necessary to protect the ratepayers in their areas.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I do not think that I need add very much to what my hon. Friends have said, but I should like to ask the Minister, before he replies, to consider the importance of this Amendment.
We have accepted what he said to us before about the impossibility of full certificates being given to local authorities and other bodies, but it is important for the working of the Bill that there should be full co-operation between the local authorities and the Ministry if the Bill is to work effectively. There cannot be that co-operation, and there cannot be proper local authority knowledge, unless the local authorities do know who the users are. That is all that we are asking. They should know who and where the users are, and if, in a particular area, radioactive materials are being used, the local authorities should know by whom these materials are being used. It is a very simple thing. Indeed. I should not have thought that there would be any difficulty about the Minister doing that.
The Minister did say, in discussing the matter in Committee, that there was a danger that the knowledge might alert people of ill-will. I do not quite know why he should have that idea, because representatives of local authorities who are to have this information are extremely responsible people, and I cannot think that he would have thought that they might be people who would have ill-will. The Minister is very severely restricting the people who will see the certificates held by the local authorities, and he should not restrict them for water undertakings and bodies of that kind, because, here again, they are responsible people.
It is important that in certain areas the local medical officer, in particular, should know that radioactive materials are being used in the vicinity. That is the whole substance of the Amendment. I would, therefore, urge the Minister to see whether, if he cannot accept the


Amendment—and I do not know whether he will or not—he cannot make sure that this information is given to the local authorities, who are responsible for the health of their areas and cannot function effectively unless they have this knowledge.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will be sympathetic in the sense that he will accept the Amendment, and that, if he cannot accept the actual wording, he will accept it in principle.
As both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister himself know, we had a wide debate on this matter during the Committee stage proceedings on 31st March, when we discussed this very same principle on an Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). Then, the Minister gave a promise that if we put down a more flexible Amendment, he would give it sympathetic consideration. My hon. Friend has acted in that spirit, and the Amendment which is in her name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) is more flexible, and should meet the wishes of the Minister.
We are anxious that the reservations under subsection (6) of this Clause should not be restrictive, and that the Minister will not be able to use the argument about secrecy. In Committee, the Minister was asked what was meant by national security. There is a danger that we can use this phrase to frustrate the working of local authorities, which, in the operation and administration of this important Measure, are key concerns and key people. We are only anxious that the Bill shall help the local authorities to have more knowledge as to who will be the users of these materials, who will be granted certificates, and also those who will be authorised to dispose of waste. We are anxious that the local authorities shall be helped, and that, even if there are in certain circumstances grounds for the Minister withholding information, skeleton certificates can be given to the local authorities.
In Committee, and in another place, the Government have always used the argument that there is an important question of trade secrets. I think that

that argument on a previous occasion was adequately refuted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, who argued that, after all, the Minister has full powers in Clause 13 (3) to deal with any giving away of trade secrets of any firms or persons who are covered by this Measure.
I hope that the Minister, in reply, will not use again this argument about national security, but that he will give us a favourable reply. In view of the promise which he made in the Standing Committee, and of the fact that my hon. Friend withdrew her Amendment then, I therefore hope that we shall have today a favourable reply.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): It is quite true that my right hon. Friend undertook to look at this matter again. We have done the very best we can, but I fear that we cannot move in the way that hon. Members opposite ask us to do.
I accept entirely the point made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) about the fallibility of all of us. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has himself said that the Bill may, in due course, have to be amended as more knowledge becomes available. We are not dogmatic about that at all. I also accept entirely the good will of hon. Members opposite in their attempt to meet our legitimate anxiety in this matter by the way in which they have drawn the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) asked me what I could possibly mean by associating the concept of ill-will with the undoubtedly honourable members of local authorities and their staffs. She will understand that in terms of national security we have to assume that there is some—a very small amount of—knowledge that, without any regard to the character of the public at large, must be kept to as small and limited a circle a possible. It is that very small residuum of knowledge that we are dealing with here, and this is the difficulty which my right hon. Friend is in. Registration, which we are discussing, is really the process of control, and, as we have frequently discussed in Committee, it is not registration in vacuo; it is registration of user for a certain amount and type of radioactive material


in specified premises, using a specified method.
It is quite true that the Opposition have tried to help us to retain the control quality of the registration certificate by avoiding disclosing in the very rare cases information that might endanger national security, but to emasculate this control document in order to free what I shall argue is an extremely tiny minority of registration certificates for copying to the local authorities would be entirely disproportionate and, in fact, would do positive harm.
Let us suppose that the form of emasculation is to falsify the certificate, innocently and with good object, of course, but to falsify it to the extent of not putting in the detail, the exact and correct description of either the user or the premises—of course, if either of those were falsified, it would not meet the purpose in hon. Members' minds—or the quantity or type of radioactive material involved. This would be actively misleading and would, I suggest, do more harm than good.
What, I think, hon. Members may have in mind is the dummy certificate, which we discussed in Committee. As I tried to explain then, and as I must reaffirm now, if a dummy certificate is issued it draws attention to the very facts that we all want to avoid disclosing, namely, that the particular registration involves a specific use, premises, user or type or quantity of radioactive material about which there is something desperately secret.
If the Amendment were conceivably directed to dealing with any substantial quantity of radioactive material or uses, then, perhaps, it might be justified to press it further, although I cannot see how we could possibly meet it. But, surely, hon. Member must realise that there cannot conceivably be large quantities involved here. The largest user, the Atomic Energy Authority, is not itself subject to registration. The purpose of registration in its case is achieved by administrative means.
In regard to the disposal or accumulation of radioactive material, my right hon. Friends, in the case of the Atomic Energy Authority or licensed sites, are, of course, obliged to consult the local authorities and other public bodies before

authorisations are given. That deals automatically with the largest quantities.
I can give an absolute assurance that the number of cases in which this particular discretion in my right hon. Friends will be exercised will be very, very, very small—I use the word "very" three times —tiny minority of cases and, so far as we can see at the moment—there is always opportunity to come back to the House if circumstances change—the position of local authorities and public bodies cannot conceivably in any way be falsified as a result of their being misled.
I accept entirely the good will of hon. Members opposite in putting down the Amendment and pursuing it, but I hope very much that, after the explanation I have given, they will seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Peart: The Minister has tried to give us a reasonable reply and has—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot speak again except by leave of the House. I thought that he was rising to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Peart: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, before I commit myself to what I may ask leave to do, that the Minister has given a reply which we cannot regard as satisfactory. He spoke about emasculation and stressed that our Amendment referred only to a small minority of users. Surely, in any locality, if persons were using radioactive materials and, for reasons of national security, the processes were not to be revealed, every responsible local government officer connected with safety precautions would know that they were there and would know the location. I have in mind our own experience in Cumberland.
I cannot see why a dummy certificate or a skeleton certificate could not be issued. We do not suggest that there should be falsification of details. We suggest merely that, in certain cases, only the name, perhaps, and the location should be given without the actual details of what processes are conducted in the premises. That is not falsification. We were thinking, rather, in terms of presenting information which would be brief and in no way give away


secrets which, for reasons of national security or otherwise, people should not have.
I am sorry that the Minister has not been forthcoming. We shall not press the matter to a Division. He has said that we can always look at it again.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my hon. Friend tell me when we can look at it again? Before this millenium of happiness which atomic energy is to give to the world, we shall all be dead from leukaemia or the consequences of radioactive fall-out. It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads at that. The Geneva scientists have been studying the subject, and, in the view of some of us, it is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: It may be, but it does not entitle the hon. Member, by virtue of urgency, to make a second speech.

Mr. Davies: I agree, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend say when we shall have this opportunity?

Mr. Peart: There are other Amendments on the Notice Paper which are more substantial in principle, I think, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give his eloquent support to those. If the Government fail in their administration, we shall certainly question and cross-examine the Minister vigorously about his administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Amendment negatived.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end to insert:
(7) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore in this section and in sections two, three, four, five and (in so far as applicable) section eleven contained, the Minister if and to the extent that he deems it expedient so to do, may delegate any of the functions vested in him by those sections, to be exercised on his behalf, to a Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Radioactive Substances Control Authority") which shall consist of not less than seven nor more than ten persons to be appointed by the Minister from lime to time as and when necessary on terms which he considers appropriate, and to include among their number persons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience in the following subjects, that is to say; problems associated with the disposal of radioactive waste, in the organisation of workers, in local government, in the control of water undertakings or rivers boards, and in problems related to the medical effects of radiation

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 11, page 13, line 4, at the end to insert:
(5) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore or sections six, seven, eight, nine, ten and (in so far as applicable) this section contained the Minister or Ministers concerned if and to the extent that he or they (as the case may be) deem it expedient so to do may delegate any of the functions vested in him or them by the said sections to be exercised on his or their behalf to the Radioactive Substances Control Authority.
and the Amendment in Clause 15, page 18, line 34, at the end to insert:
(6) It shall be the duty of the Radioactive Substances Control Authority as and when required by him so to do to advise the Minister as to the exercise by him of his functions under this section, and in so far as necessary for that purpose, from time to time and in such form as they deem appropriate or the Minister directs to prepare and submit to the Minister reports in writing as to matters which in their opinion or the Minister's it is necessary or expedient that the Minister should consider for the purpose of the exercise by him of his said functions.
Those Amendments appear to go together.

Mr. Peart: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am much obliged.
The Amendment raises a matter of great principle. We have discussed in great detail the working of the Bill, provisions for consultation, the setting-up of an inspectorate, powers and rights of entry, and so forth, and, throughout, my hon. Friends and I have felt more and more that the whole control of disposal of radioactive substances should be taken out of the hands of the Minister. We should not, for this purpose, have an organisation tucked away in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
We propose in this Amendment and the subsequent consequential Amendments that the Minister should delegate to another body the functions vested in him by the various Clauses with which we are here concerned covering registration, authorisation and disposal. We suggest that there should be a body, which we have named the Radioactive Substances Control Authority in which those powers and functions should be vested.
We deal with the composition of this proposed authority. I will not dwell on the detail now. We suggest that the


authority should consist of not less than seven and not more than ten persons and that they should have wide experience in the disposal of radioactive wastes and in the organisation of workers connected with the nuclear energy industry, or any other activities connected with radioactive materials. Also, since the local authorities will play a major part in the working of the Bill—indeed, they will be responsible for the disposal of a large amount of radioactive material —there should be on the authority persons with local government experience.
Further, we suggest those connected with water undertakings, river boards and other interests related to the industry itself, embracing the nuclear energy industry and industries using radioactive materials, should have representation upon the authority.
This is an important principle, because the use of radioactive materials in this country is increasing. Since the war, the nuclear energy industry has grown enormously and we are living in a nuclear age. The disposal of radioactive materials has become a major problem, and the danger is that the machinery created for disposal will be tucked away in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved, also, because he has powers of authorisation. We fear that these two Ministers may not devote to the problem the full attention which it requires.
I would refer hon. Members opposite to the White Paper. After all, the Bill was inspired by the White Paper. The Minister has said so. It has been inspired by the work of a Committee which the Minister set up, the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. It made an excellent Report. Its chairman was Dr. Key, Senior Chemical Inspector of the Minister's Department. Moreover, the secretary and assistant secretary were high executive officers in the Minister's Department. What did these eminent people recommend?
If hon. Members will look at the conclusions in the White Paper, they will see in paragraph 152, on page 45, that the first recommendation was that there should be
A central authority to be charged with the duty of ensuring that radioactive wastes are disposed of safely, for example, as defined in paragraph 117 (paragraphs 134 and 143).

Paragraph 143, on page 42, dealing with control, states:
We would, however, make the following general comments. We would presume that the authority would be a central government body and we can envisage two possible ways in which its responsibilities could be discharged.
The last sentence of that paragraph reads:
We feel that central government control over radioactive wastes should be co-ordinated by one authority in order to ensure that effective control is exercised and that waste of scientific manpower is avoided.
In other words, it is advocated that there should be one authority. At present, under the Bill, there is not one authority. The matter comes under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We therefore argue that the Minister should accept our proposal in principle. He may say that at present it is not practical, but I hope that at a later stage he will feel that, with the building up of an inspectorate, it will be necessary to create one central authority which will be responsible for registration, authorisation and, above all, the control of members of the inspectorate who are the key people in this matter. The Minister has an inspectorate, the Alkali Inspectorate. There have been criticisms of it by one of my hon. Friends. The Minister refuted his criticisms. Nevertheless, here we are proposing the creation of another inspectorate which will come under the control and purview of the Minister.
In view of the growing importance of nuclear energy in industry—there are over 1,000 users of radioactive materials today—the developing use of radio isotopes, the statement on 2nd May by the Minister of Health, who has laid down codes of practice for the transportation of radioactive material by rail, sea and air, and the promise that the Minister of Transport is to consider a code of practice for the transportation of radioactive materials by road, it is right that a central authority should be created.
Only this weekend we had the Veale Report, which was mentioned by the Minister in Committee. That Report recommends the creation of a central authority. One of its recommendations


is the creation of a national radiological service. This is the sort of thing which could be combined with a new central authority, designed to control the disposal of radioactive materials. There should be an authority, responsible to the Minister in the House, because there must be Parliamentary accountability, above the Ministry and even above the Atomic Energy Authority to supervise even the work of the Authority and Government Departments concerned with the use of radioactive material.
I have come to the conclusion that a central authority is needed. This has been recommended in the Government's own White Paper. It was recommended not by politicians, but by civil servants who are connected with the scientific side of life. There are great experts who are dealing day by day with the problems of radioactive material. They have expressed themselves in favour of a national authority and they have also recommended the setting up of a national disposal service. I believe that such an authority will be able to supervise better the members of the inspectorate, who will be the key people.
In Committee, the Minister argued that he had two inspectors in his Department. We regard this number as inadequate.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.

Mr. Peart: If the Parliamentary Secretary looks up the record, he will see that "two" was quoted in Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: At the moment—before the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary agrees that at the moment there are only two inspectors in the Department. If we are to do our job properly, we must rapidly increase the inspectorate. We must speed up the machinery. I am certain that the only way that we can do these things is to take the matter out of the hands of an orthodox Government Department and create an authority which will be responsible to the House.
The Atomic Energy Authority has done a wonderful job in another sphere. It has led the way in safety and research. A new authority responsible to the Minister in the House so that we could have Parliamentary accountability should be set up. We did not argue this matter in Committee, but it emerged

more and more from our discussions that we must treat it much more seriously. Here is an opportunity to make a step forward, and, if the machinery which I propose can be created, I am certain that this step forward will have been made.

Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, we feel strongly about this matter. We are seeking to get away from the Minister's Department and set up a national Radioactive Substances Control Authority. We are asking that there should be a national committee of experts who are knowledgeable and experienced and specialise in their own limited field-first, in the uses of radio isotopes and radioactive substances, secondly, in the disposal of radioactive waste, and, thirdly, in the effect upon health of the uses of large quantities of radioactive materials. Fourthly, we say that people who have to work with radio isotopes should be consulted.
In considering whether a national authority should be set up, we ought, first, to recognise how the atomic energy industry is growing. To begin with, it was shrouded in secrecy. Originally, it was concerned with atomic weapon development under the Ministry of Supply. Later, we had the Atomic Energy Authority, responsible for all State research into peaceful uses. When the horizon had been broadened and the chances were there for nuclear to be harnessed and brought into industry, we saw the emergence of the industrial consortia. Obviously, they were visualising the large profits to be made from the terrific amount of public money poured into the Atomic Energy Authority by all the research that had been done. First, it was done under the cloak of secrecy and then, immediately private industries banded together—engineering companies and aircraft firms—to form the consortium, they sapped the nation dry of all our technological and engineering personnel.
4.30 p.m.
We now see that the use of radioactive substances, materials, isotopes, and so on, is rapidly spreading in agriculture, medicine and industry. There is increased research in scientific and in industrial laboratories, too. A number of fears are emerging that their use is spreading so rapidly that they are getting


out of hand. Because of that, the Government are introducing a Bill to control completely the deposits and accumulation of waste following from their use.
There is a second fear. Medical officers of health are noticing the increased use of these materials in their areas, in factories and in hospitals, and the dumping of this waste in their areas. Many of these people have done a great deal of independent work in checking the degree of danger from their use.
Water undertakers, too, have their fear. Because of it, allied with the medical officers of health, they have been watching and checking the discharges of effluents and waste into sewers, tidal estuaries, and so on. They have also been perturbed by the amount of radioactive waste dumped inland, particularly where it has been buried in a chalk strata. They fear that in due course it will be released and affect the water supplies nearby. They have developed a particular knowledge of the matter from their experience.
Fourthly, in many of our industries— the Minister said that there were 1,000 users, and there are at least 400 factories using isotopes—the workers, and particularly their trade union representatives, are worried. They have fears about the extent of their use and the effects of their use on the health of the workers. Agricultural workers and their representatives have been perturbed because of the amount of radioactive sludge placed on the land.
River boards, too, are concerned, because they have been watching not only the discharges into our inland waterways and tidal estuaries, but a washing down from the hills of strontium which has fallen as a result of tests. Consequently, we have the cumulative effect of these two discharges into the rivers, and the river boards have been analysing them.
The Minister really cannot ignore any of the representations from these bodies. While not directly associated with the atomic energy industry itself, they have gained from experience a working knowledge of such an intimate nature that it would be foolish for the Minister or any Department to shun their advice.

Because of this we should like the Minister to supplement his overall knowledge which can only have been gained from his small inspectorate and the inspectorate which works under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister may, of course, receive some information from the Atomic Energy Authority, but we do not know to what extent the Ministry is working with it. We only know that the right hon. Gentleman has a small inspectorate, as has the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
We would have liked the Government to have used to a greater extent the leading members of the organisations I have mentioned. Therefore, we ask that there should be set up a Radioactive Substances Control Authority, a top committee, with experts drawn from those fields. The Minister cannot ignore the White Paper which was prepared as a forerunner to this Bill, Cmnd. 884, entitled, The Control of Radioactive Wastes. I would point out to the Minister that this White Paper was presented in March, 1958, but that the House was not aware of its existence until November, 1959. That was a shocking lapse of time. Therefore, we are dealing with a White Paper which is two years out of date. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the recommendation contained in it, that there should be a national authority. I do not apologise to the House for going through the White Paper in detail, because it emphasises our point.
The Minister decided to draw upon the experience of an expert body, to the members of which we have paid due respect on many occasions in Committee. The strongest points made by the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee were regarding this national authority. Paragraph 133, which is entitled "Suggested Methods and Powers of Control", states:
Because of the nature of the hazard, therefore, we consider that positive authorisations are needed in all significant cases before any disposal of radioactive waste is effected.
The Committee wants to make sure that the national security phraseology is widened. On a previous Amendment, the Minister doubted our concern about that. The Committee points out that


it wants all significant cases registered. In paragraph 134, it goes on to say:
We believe that the following facts and arguments lead inevitably to the conclusion that the control should be exercised at national level.
The Committee gives various reasons. In sub-paragraph (a) the Committee says:
We believe that this can be achieved only by a central body in close touch with other departments and governments and with knowledge of the genetic contribution from other sources. From the point of view of the nation's future, it would as much the concern of London as of Manchester if the inhabitants of either were exposed to radiation from radioactive wastes. Each case must, therefore, be considered as an aspect of a national problem.
Point after point is made in the White Paper, from that paragraph onwards, to the effect that the Minister must recognise a national authority. In paragraph 134 (b) the Committee goes on to say:
In these circumstances we consider that a more economical use of available manpower would be involved if such matters were dealt with nationally rather than locally.
We have pointed out time and time again in Standing Committee and my hon. Friend repeated it once more today, that one of the greatest difficulties is to get sufficient experienced manpower to do the job. We are suggesting that from these four organisations in the country which have experience in this field, because they have been working in it for a number of years, should be drawn people to serve on this national authority. In paragraph 134 (c), the Committee states:
We should not, however, preclude the possibility that the work of the bigger local authorities might be integrated into the scheme of control organised by the central authority.
That is the point that I was trying to make. Because of their specialised knowledge at regional or local level, the Minister could draw from these bodies a field service and use it throughout this central authority.
In paragraph 138, headed "Powers of Inspection", the Advisory Committee goes on to say:
Ultimately the wastes have to be got rid of and since, as we explain below, we consider that a national disposal service is necessary…
Throughout its Report, which itself led to the framing of the Bill, the Committee reiterates that the Minister cannot ignore that a national authority, separate from his own Government Department, should be set up. On the question of

control, the Committee states, in paragraph 143:
We would presume that the authority would be a central government body.
Later in that same paragraph it states:
We feel that central government control over radioactive wastes should be co-ordinated by one authority in order to ensure that effective control is exercised and that waste of scientific manpower is avoided.
I am sorry to make such a lot of quotations, but what I am quoting covers the contents of the Bill. The members of the committee are the team of experts which decided that the Bill was necessary. They have advised the Minister. The point is made by the Advisory Committee that there should be a national authority and the Minister is turning it down.
Finally, in the conclusions in paragraph 152—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned this specifically—there are tabulated ten reasons why it is necessary for a central authority to be charged with the duty of disposing safely of radioactive wastes. We agree with those ideas. We particularly agree that there should be a central body drawn from the bodies which I have mentioned, a committee of experts, all with a limited but nevertheless specialised knowledge, and stretching down to the regions the Minister could have a field service consisting of representatives from local authorities, water undertakings, medical officers of health and the workers.
Having recognised that one of the greatest problems of the Ministry will be to obtain sufficiently experienced men for the inspectorate, we should like to help the Minister, and we believe that the best, easiest and safest method for all concerned would be achieved through the adoption of our Amendment.

Mr. Norman Pentland: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Peart) and Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in pressing upon the Minister the establishment of a central authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley said that the Minister would turn down the proposal, but I trust that he was not anticipating the event, for I hope that out of the establishment of the central authority will emerge the right for workers to be consulted. I hope that the workers will have the right to appoint their own representatives to the central authority


for the purposes of consultation, among other things, and I hope that this right will apply to workers in industries where radioactive substances are used.
It is very disappointing to us to find that the Minister is not giving greater consideration to the rights of workers to be consulted in this matter. When, in Standing Committee, I moved an Amendment with the object of securing this consultation, the right hon. Gentleman suggested to me that the principle I was seeking to achieve was already covered by legislation. He said that the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, covered that issue. I have since looked at that Act, and nowhere in it do I find laid down a specific obligation for consultation with workers, nor do I find such an obligation laid down in any of the other regulations covering the use of radioactive materials in industry.
4.45 p.m.
It is true that, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out to me, the Minister of Power and the Secretary of State for Scotland are obliged under the 1959 Act to attach safety conditions to a nuclear site licence. I accept that and fully recognise its importance as a safeguard, but it is far from being the same as consultation.
If the Minister would accept a statutory obligation for representatives of workers to be consulted in regard to the measures proposed in the Bill, it would not only improve the Minister's position, but add strength to the powers and duties of the inspectorate and the central authority which we seek to have established.
The Minister said in the Standing Committee:
I would remind the Committee that those whose health needs to be specially watched in relation to the disposal of radioactive wastes —which is what the Bill is concerned with— are young people and children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th April, 1960; c 166.]
That is true, but if a worker engaged in the disposal of radioactive wastes learnt by virtue of his experience that some unknown source of danger existed, how would he be able to draw attention to it? We may be told that he would be

able to contact the inspectorate; but we all know what happens in that respect.
In a case such as this it might be many months before the worker was able to contact the person responsible, or, as I said in the Standing Committee, if he were not represented in any form of consultation he might think that it was nothing to do with him and the matter would be left. There we have a situation which might be very dangerous to young people and children. It might, in the long run, be a very serious hazard.
It would be in the interests of all concerned if the Minister would tell us how he could, as a result of the Bill, provide for some form of consultation with trade unions and workers in respect of this very important matter. We ask him to accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Perhaps my main qualification for addressing the House today is that I know as little about radioactive wastes as any hon. Member who has so far spoken.
I suggest that when we are considering an Amendment we should consider, first, what it is trying to do, and, secondly, whether it does anything towards achieving its object. As far as I can see, and according to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), the Amendment is designed to produce quicker consultation with all interested parties and to enable quicker decisions to be made in respect of the control of radioactive wastes. I cannot see that it does anything in the way of speeding up the procedure. Whatever happens, the control of radioactive wastes will be dependent on the inspectorate, and it cannot be determined by anybody else. The inspectorate will, rightly, be run by the Ministry, and the mere existence of an outside authority will not in the least make the inspector report any quicker or any more accurately.

Mr. Pentland: It is not a question of the inspectorate making a report any quicker or any more accurately. We are trying to draw attention to the fact that there are occasions—if the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) reads the White Paper he will discover what we mean—when hazards and nuisances are brought about in industry by the use of radioactive materials. The inspectorate may not be aware of this, but we believe


that the workers engaged in the industry could draw attention to these hazards long before the inspector made his visit to the industry.

Mr. Wise: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I still do not agree. Presumably, the inspectors will be investigating all disposals of radioactive wastes, and while they are making those investigations it will, clearly, be open to anyone to express his views on the matter one way or the other.
The White Paper demands throughout that this matter should be under the control of a central authority, and one cannot have a more central authority than the Minister. The effect of the Amendment would be to produce a dichotomy of two central authorities and I do not think that that is in the least desirable. The new authority proposed in the Amendment is supposed to be composed of persons who have
… wide experience in … problems associated with the disposal of radioactive waste…
Well and good, but where are any such outside the Minister's employees? Where could they be found?

Mr. Peart: Water undertakings already employ chemists who are trained in dealing with radiation. Thirty of the large water undertakings have technical people who have had experience of this very problem of disposal. The hon. Member said at the beginning of his speech that he knew little about the disposal of radioactive waste. I hope that he will not prove his point.

Mr. Wise: I was under the impression that one of the main planks of hon. Members opposite was the nationalisation of water supplies and that would bring the matter back to exactly where we are now. It is perfectly true that water undertakings are appointed bodies to deal with these matters, but they do not compare in expertise with the people who are the highest-grade scientists.

Mr. Peart: Water undertakings employ top scientists. I could mention papers published by them and the names of individuals who are held in high regard by the people who are connected with this problem. I am certain that the Minister would agree with me. The hon. Member should not assume that experts on atomic energy and radiation

are only those who are connected with the Atomic Energy Authority or with the Government's inspectorate. There are many people outside and inside local government service, such as medical officers of health, who have expert knowledge of radiation.

Mr. Wise: I am sorry, but even now I cannot agree with the hon. Member. It is true that many people have been thinking of radioactive waste, but the people who really know something about it are the people who are creating the waste and who have had to study it from the very beginning. The matter is very much better left in their hands.
Incidentally, I think that the purport of the Amendment was not to take the water engineers out of local government employment and put them on this high authority, but to find members of councils which operate water undertakings and put them on; and I do not believe that in that way we should find the necessary panel of experts.
The Amendment refers to people who have had wide experience
… in the organisation of workers…
That is all very well, but we want experts in the disposal of radioactive waste and equally people expert in local government. I have been a member of a local government authority and of a public cleansing committee dealing with the disposal of sewage and I claim to know a little about those things, but I would hesitate to put my name forward as a member of an authority which will make final decisions on this highly technical and difficult question of the disposal of radioactive waste. It would be very much better to leave matters as they are envisaged now, with the Minister being responsible.
The Minister, after all, can be attacked in the House if anything goes wrong. This board, if it is like any other board, will not be able to be attacked anywhere. If the voice of public criticism is to be really vocal the more these central authorities are left under Parliamentary control the better. I urge most strongly that things be left as they stand and that we resist the Amendment. I fully appreciate the motive behind it and we share the desire of hon. Members opposite that any possibility of danger from the disposal of these wastes should be eliminated, but we cannot help by setting up


new authorities. I suggest, therefore, that the House should reject the Amendment.

Mrs. Judith Hart: It seems from what we have heard that there are some hon. Members in the House who believe that since the only people who know anything about radioactive waste are those who produce it there is no need to have a Bill, because all we need do is to say to the private industrialist, "You get rid of the waste. You know how to do it." That does not help at all in the argument on this Clause.
This is a crucial debate on whether or not we should have the kind of central authority envisaged in the Amendment for the administration of public health matters in relation to dangers from radioactive waste. We are attempting to put some vitality and spirit into the Bill which, without the Amendment, will be merely a paper Measure, satisfying only certain civil servants.
I remind the Minister of what was said in Committee when there was some debate about the methods by which the central register would be maintained and kept and when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had investigated the method by which it was being kept in the Ministry at the moment. To quote hs own words:
I found this rather satisfying. The records were in crisp, neat, well-kept form.
And, earlier in the same passage, he had said:
…I had three complete sets of cards recording in detail all the deliveries of radioactive materials over the last three years…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th April, 1960; c. 106.]
and these were readily available in an office along the corridor.
The aim of the Bill, apparently, was to safeguard the administrative side only and not to serve the essential public purpose of safeguarding the nation's health as recommended in the White Paper on the Control of Radioactive Wastes, which has been widely and rightly quoted today because it ought to be the foundation of the Government's thinking.
It is difficult to see how a Ministry can satisfy the demands made on a

central authority by those who made the recommendations in the White Paper, though I agree that the Minister's Department would be a central authority. The White Paper envisages inspection of premises, registration, the issue of authorisation certificates and the provision of facilities for the disposal of radioactive wastes.
It also states that the controlling authority should have power
To sample and monitor radioactive wastes and the material contaminated when they are disposed of.
Later in the White Paper there is mention of the possibility that the central authority created under the Bill might have its own laboratories and scientific staffs, in addition to the Minister's staff, who would be able to monitor and carry out whatever work was necessary.
A relevant question needs to be asked of the Minister at this stage. It is evident that the Ministry itself will not have laboratories with specialist scientific staff to carry out monitoring and sampling within the limited inspectorate proposed, which is two at the moment and likely to go up to three or four in the next year. If the Ministry is not to have the laboratories and the scientific staff, who is to carry out the monitoring, sampling, and scientific investigation envisaged in the White Paper as necessary to be carried out by a central authority?
5.0 p.m.
It has been mentioned that an alternative might be for the Ministry to hand out contracts to other organisations to do this work for it. If a central authority with its own laboratories is to be rejected, which we on this side of the House would deplore, because we believe that it would be far more satisfactory that those who have administrative control should also be carrying out the scientific work involved, how is the Minister to ensure that monitoring and sampling are done? Has he investigated this already, and what arrangement will be made when the Bill comes into operation? These are questions which we have a right to ask and to which we have the right to expect answers today.
There is one other aspect. It is envisaged in the White Paper that a central authority shall have powers to prohibit


use. We had many discussions in Committee on prohibiting use. It was made quite clear, and a certain measure of agreement was reached on both sides in Committee, that in order to safeguard the public from too many discharges of radioactive waste it might on occasion in future be necessary to prohibit use. The White Paper points out that the first conclusion of the Medical Research Council's report is that adequate justification is required for the employment of any source of ionising radiation on however small a scale, the reason being the genetic risk to the population.
It seems to me that this touches the heart of the Bill. It will be necessary in the next ten years, with the tendency for technological progress, for consideration to be given on occasion to the necessity for prohibiting the use of radioactive materials in order that less radioactive waste may be accumulated in certain areas. There is the danger, already referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who quoted the White Paper, about events in London affecting the children of Birmingham and Manchester. I am sure that the civil servants, with their neat, tidy bundles of forms in the Minister's own Department, with two to four inspectors, will not be able adequately to assess the genetic dangers that might ensue to the public and be able to do the monitoring and sampling on a scale adequate to ensure the purposes of the Bill are being carried out.
That is why we think that our central authority, if the Minister will accept our Amendment, would give the vitality to the Bill which it lacks. We would say and I am sure that the public would agree, that it is a great pity that those newspapers, which have in the past shown some concern about the problem of radioactive waste, have neglected to inform themselves about the progress of this Bill and of the way in which it fails to fulfil the terms of the White Paper. The public at large, and I think that part of the Press which has shown concern, would not be happy to know that the Government are trying to safeguard public health on the cheap in this Measure. The Government hope by this administrative Measure that they will satisfy the conscience of the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is perfectly

true. The Bill as it stands does not give anybody powers, staff or resources sufficient to do an adequate job. That is the plain fact about the Bill. We on this side of the House would urge that the Amendment should be accepted in order that something can be made of the Bill, which the Minister has been unable to make of it.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: One has to realise that year by year nuclear energy is becoming more widely used. Not only this country but other countries will be sending ships into our ports, and the radioactive waste which they will discharge will certainly become a great hazard to this country. Not only will a greater amount of supervision be required, but a greater amount of help will be demanded in various areas throughout the country.
The Minister has said that he contemplates having a sufficient staff. If he is looking at the problem as it stands today he may have sufficient staff, but we on this side of the House are trying to visualise what will be the position ten to fifteen years ahead. More nuclear energy will be used and adequate provision should be made now for that when the time comes. I feel that the central authority for which we are asking would give an added impetus to the Bill. For example, men dealing with sewers would know and understand the amount of waste that will annually be put down the sewers and would report on the position if there were a central authority to which they could report. We need on this authority men and women who understand and really know what is the meaning of atomic waste.
We feel that with the set up of a central body they will be able to assist in the disposal of radioactive waste. They will know in different parts of the country whether there is sufficient waste for the time being and be able to judge where that waste should be disposed of. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, there is no check today on where there is radioactive waste deposited. Surely we do not want that to continue. With a central authority reports could be made to it quickly and we should be doing a good job.
The Minister has been sympathetic towards our pleas on other provisions. Here is something which he should also now sympathetically consider. The setting up of a central authority will ease the Minister's burden of worry and responsibility. It will be able to guide and help him in more senses than one and if questions are asked in the House, he will have readily available all the required information about where radioactive waste is being deposited without having to wait for a report from his inspectors. I hope that he will accept our suggestion, which we believe to be in the best interests of the Bill.

Mrs. Butler: This is an excellent Amendment, despite what has been said from the other side of the House. I support all that my hon. Friends have said, because I am convinced that this is a matter which the Minister should consider very seriously. Because the number of experts in this matter is limited and because the subject is so wide and covers so many aspects of public life, we propose that the Minister should have constantly at hand the best brains available in this subject.
Many of the best brains available produced the White Paper on which the Bill is based, but there are many others, as my hon. Friends have stressed, in water undertakings and among medical officers of health, people with special qualifications who have made a special study of the subject. What we are asking is that there should be the highest common multiple, as it were, of the brains available in a central control authority.
I think the Minister is underestimating what the Bill will do. I think that he is satisfied that his Department can cope with the demands, but, as my hon. Friends have stressed, this is a problem which will grow and expand. All of us who worked on the Bill in Committee have become aware of the kind of problems which will develop as the Bill comes into operation.
This is a pilot Bill which is pioneering in this subject, but we can see that as time goes on many of the problems on which we have touched very lightly in our discussions will have to be considered more fully and carefully. We

think that because in introducing the Bill the Minister has had to consult very many people—it has taken a considerable time to get the Bill—it is desirable that he should have constantly at his disposal such a body of people who could carry on the kind of advice, research and co-ordination which were necessary before the Bill was produced and which will be even more necessary when it comes into operation.
The Minister may think that he can carry the load at the moment. He has been likened to many things in the course of our discussions, but I think of him as a modern Atlas with responsibility for housing, local government, Welsh affairs and now this whole subject of radioactive protection on his shoulders, and with one hand held out to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep liaison with him. Very quickly he could become so overburdened that he would find it necessary to introduce such an authority.
In Committee, the Minister was good enough to tell us why he had not accepted certain pieces of advice in the White Paper. I hope that he will now be good enough to tell us why he does not accept this most important advice, for if he does not accept it now, he will have to do so sooner or later as the problem grows.
The whole nature of the Bill makes some sort of authority necessary. The Amendment is very flexible and says only that the Minister may delegate any of the functions vested in him to this authority. He may find that a problem looms very large and he has to give more attention to it than he is able to give. He might then find it desirable to have an authority to whom he could delegate functions, asking the authority to examine the problem in more detail.
The nature of the Bill demands that there should be somebody permanently available to examine all the problems which arise and to advise the Minister. It will be perfectly easy through the Minister for hon. Members to question what is being done, so that there is no question of the authority not being responsible to the House. It will be within the Minister's hands to delegate to the authority such matters as he wants and to report and be questioned in the House on the authority's behalf.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear all those points in mind and will tell us what he proposes to do as the work develops and he comes up against these problems on which he could have the advice of the best brains in this matter if he were to accept our Amendment, or something in the same spirit.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but I was somewhat stung into rising to my feet when it was suggested that if we did not accept the Amendment the Government would forgo the safety and the health of the public in order to save money, and that we were trying to do it on the cheap. That is going much too far.
I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) that we should have the best brains from all over the country consulting on these problems. I agree with that entirely, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend does, but I do not think that that is done in the form the Amendment suggests. I do not think that we have to set up a statutory body in order to consider these matters. That body is to consist of ten people and will probably outnumber the inspectors under its control, certainly to start with.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has been most attentive in Committee and must have heard my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend give assurance after assurance that we would obtain every type of consultation and every type of advice on the working of the Bill. For her to suggest that if the Amendment is rejected it will be because we are trying to do it on the cheap is wrong, and I think that she knows that it is wrong.

Mrs. Hart: It is because I have attended the Committee and heard all the Minister's replies that I have been reluctantly driven to conclude that the reasons for rejecting so many of our Amendments are financial.

Mr. Emery: That is obviously a reason which I cannot accept. Financial interests have nothing whatever to do with the safety of the people, and never once has either my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend suggested that. It would be wrong to say that the Amendment was rejected for financial reasons.

Mr. Peart: Surely the hon. Gentleman remembers that in Committee, when we were arguing about keeping the register, the arguments used against us was that more people would be needed to keep the register. He will find the reference in column 187 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Emery: Yes, I have the paragraph before me. I thank the hon. Gentleman. However, there is a big difference—and I am sure that he knows it—between keeping a register and having this sort of body to safeguard health.

Mr. Peart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Emery: Yes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to have to remind hon. Gentlemen that we are on the Report stage. I have permitted a certain amount of latitude in interventions.

Mr. Emery: I could not accept the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that the Amendment might be rejected for financial reasons. That is utterly wrong, and I thought that someone from this side of the House should say how wrong it was.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am not concerned with whether the Amendment is rejected for financial or other reasons. I consider that its rejection would be an error. We will not go into party politics and their effect on health, because we all know that the party opposite voted against the National Health Scheme.
It has been said that we can leave this matter to the experts. The trouble with the world is that we are leaving it to experts and generals. We left Blue Streak to experts, and we all know what has happened to that. I do not agree with the apotheosis of the expert. Let us consider why we want this consultative body.
The point of the Bill is that there is to be an expansion in industry of the use of radioactive isotopes. The uses and applications of radioactive isotopes are as tracers in engineering in 50 or 60 different ways, in examining the structure of metals and alloys and in the efficiency of colour reproduction and tracing all types of possible faults in gear. Tracers and radioactive isotopes


are also used in medicine for diagnosis. Small private firms will spring up all over the country using and distributing radioactive isotopes for private profit.
When the consultations took place at Geneva on the extension of the use of atomic energy and of radioactive isotopes, we were told that one of the dangers—and this recalls what it was like in the industrial revolution—lay in extension of hours and in forgetting health and safety precautions. This thing has not yet hit humanity to the full—but it will, because it is very serious. Because people cannot see it, feel it, smell it or touch it, they tend to shrug it off.
A man can get cancer merely by picking up what he believes is an ordinary spanner and putting it in his thigh pocket. Six weeks later he will have his leg amputated. That comes from an ordinary piece of metal emanating millions of wavelengths. We are asking that the Minister should co-ordinate all these problems through a consultative committee. We are asking for co-ordination. I like this Greek origin in the word dichotomy.

Mr. Wise: A Latin root instead of a Greek one.

Mr. Davies: We get Greek and Latin here. The hon. Member knows that quite well.
Many people using these radioactive isotopes will be untrained, or at least only partially trained. I asked the Minister during the Committee stage if he had consulted various bodies. He assured us that he had and was very pleasant to us—but we got nothing out of the Bill. The Report on the accident at Windscale in October, 1957, was called
The Organisation for Control of Health and Safety in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
The Report stated
… we have become aware during the course of our investigations that improvements to the Authority's organisation will not alone achieve all that is required.
Here is the operative phrase—
There is an urgent need to clarify the relations between the many Government Departments concerned with health safety in the atomic energy field and to strengthen the co-ordination between them.

That includes the radioactive isotopes as well. This Amendment is not just silly party opposition, but a constructive effort on behalf of both sides to try to find an answer to this problem. I should be a pompous ass if I said that I knew all the answers.
We are asking the Minister to help us by establishing a central authority which would take some of the burden off his shoulders. He bears the burden of the housing problem and of rates of interest and is inundated with letters from local authorities. Now he will be inundated with letters from river boards and from the Ministry of Agriculture. All of this is overwhelming, and every Member opposite knows that it is beyond him. We are told that every opportunity for consultation will be taken. The Minister is a kindly gentleman. I shall not repeat what I said in Committee; it would be unfair. I can assure him that it was well meant, however. He is a kindly gentleman and hopes to take all this on his shoulders. He rescued the Government over the Rent Act, but he cannot continually rescue them on an issue like this. The time is coming when we must have the type of organisation suggested in the Amendment.
I have a pamphlet called "Safety Spotlight Isotopes ". I see that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) is not listening, but he could learn something. He knew nothing about radioactive waste or isotopes, but he is an intelligent gentleman. He should read this pamphlet, which is not turned out by a political party but by the British Safety Council. The introduction, written by the national director, says:
Experience of the effects of ionizing radiation in the human body dates from the discovery of X-ray in November, 1895.
Later it goes on to say:
Over an eleven-year period "—
I want to balance what I said and that is why I am reading this—
in the American Atomic Energy Programme two people have died as a result of radiation injuries, while 184 have died of 'normal type' industrial accidents.
That is only due to the fact that there have been intelligent safety measures in American atomic energy projects, as we have had here. My plea is that we are now going into another field. The use of radioactive isotopes may spread among


a larger number of people who will not have the same responsibility as a national council would have. Somewhere, somehow this machinery must be built up. We may accept it if the Minister says he is prepared to do something even if he does not think that this is the right place in which to do it, but otherwise I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should divide the House on this issue unless we get some kind of promise from the Minister.

Sir K. Joseph: I would be the last to criticise good thoughts simply because they happen to be second thoughts, but this is so drastic a proposal that it is odd that it was not raised on Second Reading. I shall not criticise the drafting of this Amendment—

Mr. Peart: I did raise this on Second Reading. I put a direct question to the Minister. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that accusation.

Sir K. Joseph: It certainly was not pursued in Committee.

Mr. Peart: We were out of order in Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: This is the first time this has come up. I disclaim all criticism for that reason. I shall deal with it as substantially as I can on the merits. This proposed committee or authority, it is suggested, would relieve the Minister of his responsibility in this field, and we have heard that it should be placed above the Government and above the Atomic Energy Authority. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery) two very wise and short interventions, and I shall be repeating a certain amount of what they said.
5.30 p.m.
I would like to state absolutely clearly that this is not a question in which my right hon. Friend believes that he has or will have a monopoly of the best brains. I claim that the Atomic Energy Authority has a call upon the best brains in this subject, and if an authority or committee were set up as proposed it would certainly try to obtain the best brains to serve on it. But it cannot retain a monopoly of the best brains; no authority can do that. No authority

can or should have all the knowledge in a highly technical field such as this.
As well as being systematic, diligent, conscientious and thorough, an authority has to know what it should know, and be sure that on every occasion it consults the people who know best what it needs to know. An authority must make use of the best available knowledge. I claim that my right hon. Friends, through their own experts and through their calling upon other experts, whether employed by the Government or not, have this information and certainly have the will to obtain it in order to carry out their duties satisfactorily.
It is not plain from what we have heard this afternoon how widely the suggested committee would range, but within the terms of the Bill we can discuss only its relevance to radioactive waste. We worked very well in Committee, and I must warn hon. Members that it is nearly a smear—although no doubt said with the best intent—to suggest that the powers available to my right hon. Friend, his civil servants and their expert colleagues are tucked away. I know that this suggestion was not ill-meant, but anything can be said to be tucked away. This is just a phrase There is absolutely no evidence that my right hon. Friend or his advisers have failed in any way. As for quoting the Report of the Committee upon which the Bill is based, and which was so widely and properly praised in the Second Reading debate, the quotations given are absolutely out of context.
What the Committee was discussing was the question whether the control of radioactive wastes should be exercised at a central or local level. It was not discussing how the central control should be exercised if it was finally decided to accept central control. All it was out to do was to show that not enough technical people were available, or were likely to be available, and, for various reasons, including the point made by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) about the genetic involvement of this subject, to suggest that the control should be on a national and not a local basis. I can do no better than to take the choice of words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby. He said that if this authority were to be set up, far from clarifying the situation it would create a dichotomy.
I want to deal with the various arguments that have been put forward. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) gave us a picture, which I found hard to credit, of someone working in an establishment, or on premises where radioactive waste occurred, discovering something which had an implication for the control of radioactive waste and suffering in silence—being unable to communicate to the proper authority because the proper authority was my right hon. Friend and his colleagues.
That is a preposterous idea. Quite apart from communication to his own trade union; quite apart from communication to his own management or to his own local authority, there remains to him in reserve Her Majesty's Post Office, through which to correspond with my right hon. Friend or the Ministry and, in ultimate reserve, the Press. There is no evidence of the suppression of information; we await information and will act upon it.

Mr. Pentland: Surely the hon. Member realises that what we are saying is that there is no direct obligation in the Bill for any kind of consultation with the trade union movement. We want workers to be able to draw attention to radioactive wastes which are not noticeable to the inspectors. Paragraph 113 of the Report on The Control of Radioactive Wastes says:
We believe that users of radionuclides should not be allowed to produce avoidable or unnecessarily large amounts of radioactive wastes. We are not thinking here of accidental spills, which inevitably will occur from time to time, but of the use of radionuclides without adequate precaution or in a reckless manner. We know, for example, of luminising rooms badly and comprehensively contaminated because of inadequate precautions and the decontamination of which, involving extensive removal of furniture, fittings and fixtures, produced an unnecessary radioactive waste. We believe that there should be powers to stop this.
We complain that there are no such powers. The Bill contains no provision for consultation.

Sir K. Joseph: But in order to secure consultation the authority is being supported by the hon. Member. The Committee which produced that quotation was set up by my right hon. Friend, and its recommendations are being imple-

mented. The power of registration given to my right hon. Friend will enable any premises which might be treated in this way not to be registered. The hon. Member spoke of delays of months before the inspectorate could be contacted. That suggestion is ridiculous, in the light of all the facilities available for communication.
The hon. Member for Lanark raised some interesting questions which I should like to answer, but before I do so I would say that she drew some unwarrantable conclusions about our attitude to the finance involved. She, from no knowledge that I can imagine she possesses, drew the conclusion that we would be satisfied with four inspectors, and she asked where the chemical laboratory backing was that was needed for this inspectorate. This was a question which neither my right hon. Friend nor I had been asked, otherwise we would have explained the position.
My right hon. Friend's Department already has the use of two chemical laboratories. One is at Harwell, and the other is the Water Pollution Research Laboratory. In order to make sure that the facilities available to support the inspectorate shall be there on the appointed day—and the inspectorate will be increased as necessary—these facilities are being expanded. In addition, the Government Chemist is setting up an additional laboratory in order to carry out the work required, and we hope that that will be ready by the appointed day.

Mrs. Hart: Is it intended that these contracts to other organisations will involve the monitoring and sampling of material, as necessary, as recommended in the White Paper?

Sir K. Joseph: Contracts to other organisations are dealt with in the laboratory at Harwell, and my right hon. Friend's inspectors themselves do some sampling work. The Water Pollution Research Laboratory also works for us. The Government Chemist serves all Government Departments, but is setting up a special establishment to serve the inspectorate, and there will be carried on the sampling and other chemical inquiries involved in this work. There has been much talk of the number of inspectors. I must point out that my right hon. Friend had no statutory obligation to


appoint inspectors to deal with this subject. He has had radiochemical inspectors, and he has had a specialist radio-chemist since as long ago as 1950. As we said in Committee, we shall expand the inspectorate, seeking further inspectors to deal with the whole range of radioactive use. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading is absolutely right in saying that in this field there is no question of niggardliness in dealing with the vital matter of radioactive safety. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Lanark.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), in one of her agreeable interventions, spoke of my right hon. Friend as an Atlas, and feared that he might wilt under the strain of this additional load. At the moment, this is within the capacity of the Department. If, because of the increase in the tempo of technological change it becomes necessary to review the administration, we can legislate again. The amount of legislation for nuclear control, even in the last two years, has been formidable, and it may have to go on if the tempo continues at this speed.
I know that the House will not expect me to comment in detail on the Veale Committee Report published last week, but I assure the House that this Report is being urgently studied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Science.
The gist of this series of Amendments which we are discussing is that my right hon. Friends need an authority to carry out the responsibility and to relieve them. We have heard various arguments in favour of such a practice, and I should like to meet each of them directly. Such a proposal would not improve Parliamentary control. It is no good hon. Gentlemen saying that my right hon. Friend could answer for the authority. It is not nearly so direct if he is not immediately responsible for the authority as if he is. All our experience of authorities that are not directly under the Minister show that Parliamentary control is not improved by such a dichotomy.
We are told that such an authority would improve day-to-day working, but there is no evidence of that. We do not claim, and I certainly would not for a moment claim, that we have a monopoly of all the skill or expertise, but we

are humble and diligent enough to seek the answers from experts when we do not have the experts ourselves. That is the basis of intelligent control by laymen, as Ministers must be, of highly technical matters.
We were then told that such an arrangement would improve integration. That does not stand up to examination. My right hon. Friend is already responsible for local government in this country. He is already responsible for water undertakings and river boards. He is already in the closest touch with the Ministry of Labour in connection with the organisation of workers, and the Ministry of Transport in connection with transport undertakings. He is also in touch with the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. Who else would be in such a position to integrate the various technical interests involved as well as calling on the Atomic Energy Authority and industry, which any authority would have to do?
We were then told that this proposal would economise in staff skill. This is a most absurd suggestion because, if my right hon. Friend were to remain responsible to Parliament, he would need experts, and the authority would set up a rival body. We would be dissipating even further what we all agree are the scarce technical resources available.
I agree that the Amendment is put forward with the best will in the world, and I am not criticising the detailed drafting, but it would do nothing to achieve what we all want, maximum safety in dealing with radioactive substances. The Amendment would harm the purpose we have in mind, and for that reason I hope that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Peart: After hearing that reply from the Minister, I cannot possibly withdraw the Amendment. He said that we had not raised this before. He knows that I raised this on Second Reading, and he will find that to be so if he refers to column 333 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Keith Joseph: Sir Keith Joseph indicate assent.

Mr. Peart: I tabled an Amendment in Committee. It was not my fault that the Amendment was not called. It was my wish to have a longer debate in Standing Committee than we have had on this Amendment today. If that


Amendment had been accepted, no doubt it would not have been in order today. The Parliamentary Secretary is not being fair. He knows that we raised this before, and he ought to apologise for his accusation.

Sir K. Joseph: I am willing to withdraw and say that I was wrong in thinking that the hon. Gentleman had not referred to this before.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary.
5.45 p.m.
Our main purpose is to improve and co-ordinate those people dealing with the disposal of radioactive waste. For that reason we think an authority such as we propose would lead to greater efficiency and drive. We have argued that it should not be tucked away in a special Government Department.
May I now refer to the inspectorate? Those employed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government again would be employed by this authority. The Minister has power to do that. We argued that the Minister may set up his committee. The inspectorate doing the job would work for the authority who in turn would work for the Minister. We must study the Veale Report more carefully, but from what I have read I am certain that there is a need for a central authority. As I have argued earlier, the Report recommends a National Radiological Advisory Service which would work with an authority of the kind we have in mind.

Dealing with the composition of the authority, we are well aware that there are many people who will be competent to sit on the board of an authority of this kind. We are not thinking in terms of the inspectorate which must consist of highly qualified persons. It may be better to have a man of general experience on the authority. After all, Veblen once said:
Experts often have a trained incapacity to think".

It is no good the Minister running away from the words in the White Paper, the main conclusion in the White Paper is a recommendation that a central authority should be created.

Sir K. Joseph: If I might intervene with the permission of the House, one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends agreed that the Minister is a central authority.

Mr. Peart: That may be true, but the White Paper envisages a central authority. Throughout the recommendations one gets the impression that there should be a radical approach to this problem; that something new should be created. That is what we seek to do, and this Amendment is a preliminary to making a major step forward.
I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the Amendment. We have argued it fully. We believe in it and we press the Amendment, but in no party sense.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 213.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
da Freitas, Geoffrey
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bacon, Miss Alice
Diamond, John
Hayman, F. H.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dodds, Norman
Healey, Denis


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Evans, Albert
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Hilton, A. V.


Blyton, William
Finch, Harold
Holman, Percy


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Fitch, Alan
Hoy, James H.


Boyden, James
Foot, Dingle
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Forman, J. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Janner, Barnett


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ginsburg, David
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Goooh, E. G.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Chetwynd, George
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
King, Dr. Horace


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lawson, George


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hannan, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson




Mclnnes, James
Pentland, Norman
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Prentice, B. E.
Swingler, Stephen


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Symonds, J. B.


Mahon, Simon
Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Manuel, A. C.
Randall, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


Mapp, Charles
Reid, William
Warbey, William


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reynolds, G. W.
Weitzman, David


Mason, Roy
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mayhew, Christopher
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mendelson, J. J.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willey, Frederick


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Monslow, Walter
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mort, D. L.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Moyle, Arthur
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Owen, Will
Spriggs, Leslie
Zilliacus, K.


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)



Pavitt, Laurence
Stones, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead


Peart, Frederick
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)





NOES


Allason, James
Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Arbuthnot, John
Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert


Barlow, Sir John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Loveys, Walter H.


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McAdden, Stephen


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Goodhew, Victor
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley


Bishop, F. P.
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Box, Donald
Grimston, Sir Robert
Marlowe, Anthony


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marshall, Douglas


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Brooman-White, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, Ray


Bullard, Denys
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mills, Stratton


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hay, John
Morrison, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Channon, H. P. G.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Nabarro, Gerald


Chataway, Christopher
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholls, Harmar


Clarke, Brig. Terenoe (Portsmth, W.)
Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Michael


Cleaver, Leonard
Hicks Beach, Maj, W.
Nugent, Sir Richard


Cole, Norman
Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Collard, Richard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)


Cooke, Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, Graham


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K
Hirst, Geoffrey
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cordle, John
Hobson, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hollingworth, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Coulson, J. M.
Holt, Arthur
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pitman, I. J.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hopkins, Alan
Pitt, Miss Edith


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percival


Crowder, F. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Powell, J. Enoch


Cunningham, Knox
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Curran, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
James, David
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C.
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir David


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, M.


Emery, Peter
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shepherd, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Fell, Anthony
Leburn, Gllmour
Smithers, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, J. A.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm







Storey, Sir Samuel
Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wise, A. R.


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Wade, Donald
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Tapsell, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Teeling, William
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)
Woodnutt, Mark


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Woollam, John


Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Watts, James
Worsley, Marcus


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Webster, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Sharples.

Clause 8.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO AUTHORISATION OF DISPOSAL AND ACCUMULATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, at the end to insert:
(6) Any such authoritisation shall have effect as from such date as may be specified therein: and in fixing that date, in the case of an authorisation where copies of the certificate are required to be sent as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection, the Minister or Ministers concerned—

(a) shall have regard to the time at which those copies may be expected to be sent, and
(b) shall fix a date appearing to him or them to be such as will allow an interval of not less than twenty-eight days after that time before the authorisation has effect,
unless in his or their opinion it is necessary that the coming into operation of the authorisation should be immediate or should otherwise be expedited.
The Amendment was debated in principle in Committee and the Minister promised to look at it. If it is accepted, we are certain that the machinery of the Bill will be improved and that there will be a delay between the granting of the authorisation and the authorisation coming into effect.
I argued previously that authorisation for discharge of radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor would be given under subsection (2) by the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after consultation with local bodies. When authorisation is given by him under Clause 6 for disposal of waste from premises other than nuclear reactors, no provision exists for consultation with local authorities or statutory water undertakings. Local bodies at that time would have no knowledge of authorisation being given until they received a copy of the certificate from the Minister. In other words, disposal would be carried out before local authorities and local bodies knew about it.
It is for that reason that we hope that the Amendment will be accepted. It is a simple device by which local authorities, stautory water undertakings and such bodies will know that disposal has been authorised, but they will know that it has not been carried out. That is important. There will be no hasty authorisations. I will not weary the Committee too much, but it was argued over and over again in Committee that the Minister may well have to grant an authorisation and there would have to be quick action, for instance, the use of an isotope or radioactive materials in connection with industry—an oil pipe leak, to give only one example. Despite that, we hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. It is slightly different from our original Amendment.

Mr. Mason: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), mainly because we think that before the authorisation is brought into effect there should be what we term a gap of safety or a period of caution giving roughly twenty-eight days' notice to the authority concerned before the disposal of or the accummulation of radioactive waste takes place.
6.0 p.m.
We recognise that it could not be done in every instance. There may be cases in which the urgent removal of radioactive wastes is necessary. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, quite rightly, that small amounts may have to be moved in an area in an emergency. Where there are significant disposals or accumulations, however—the word used in the White Paper—we hope that the Minister will consider this procedure. In Committee he said that he was prepared to consider our Amendment if we made it more flexible, and I hope that the present wording will satisfy his requirements.
We think that time is most important —time, first of all, to accept what type


of radioactive substance is to be discharged and time to assess its degree of radioactivity. As the local authorities would be conversant with the area of discharge or the dumping ground, the Amendment would also give them time to assess the danger in that area.
We should like the Minister to give the assurance to both the bodies principally concerned—the water undertakers and the local authorities—that they would not be taken by surprise and that there would be no hasty authorisation.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend said that he was sympathetic to the general purpose of the Amendment, and now that it has been put down and he can see that he is given complete discretion in the timing of the authorisation, he advises the House that the Amendment is useful and should be accepted. I would point out that it is not only for the benefit of local authorities and water undertakers, to which the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) referred, because all other bodies who have interests and who get their information through the local authorities will find that this will be valuable.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the Amendment and for his reply.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(SPECIFIED ELEMENTS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 27, line 39,;column 2, to leave out "1" and to insert "2".
This is the first of four purely technical Amendments to the Third Schedule which, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the House may find it convenient to discuss together.
The Third Schedule, which has to be read in conjunction with Clause 18 (2, a), was inserted in another place in order to define more clearly which materials containing radioactivity from natural sources were "radioactive materials" for the purposes of the Bill. The concentrations specified for liquids and gases in the second and third columns of the Third Schedule are one-tenth of those which informed people regard as capable of being ingested for a life-time without harm. The take into account the fact that the In ernational Commission on

Radiological Protection is likely to publish revised maximum permissible levels shortly. No maximum permissible levels have been recommended by the International Commission for solids, and the figures in the second column of the Third Schedule were mostly calculated to ensure that if a person were in contact with the substance for a life-time, he would not receive a dose of radiation exceeding the natural background.
As has been brought out in discussions on previous stages, a great variety of commonplace objects of domestic and normal use contain radioactive elements in small quantities. For example, phosphate rocks crushed and used as artificial fertilisers contain traces of uranium. Granite and even ordinary coke ashes have a thorium and uranium content. Ordinary virgin lead can contain radioactive isotopes of lead. My right hon. Friend considers that some of the figures in the Third Schedule can be raised so as to let out some of these innocuous materials without impairing the general principle that the specified concentration should err, if at all, on the side of caution.
Natural potassium contains radioactive potassium 40, and the concentration at present stipulated in the Third Schedule would bring under control quite weak solutions of natural potassium which nobody would normally regard as a radioactive material. It is a difficult technical matter to decide at precisely which point a solution containing potassium 40 needs to be controlled on account of its radioactive properties, but my right hon. Friend would like to delete this item from the Schedule at the present stage and to rely on his power under Clause 18 (6) to insert the appropriate entry by Order if later it should prove necessary.
I hope that the House will accept that these changes will still leave the Schedule very safely within the limits of caution which the whole House and the Government desire to see embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Member assure me that since the Schedule was printed no private industries have brought pressure to bear on his Department in order to have the figures altered so that they may be able to carry out


their work more easily than would have been the case if the figures had been maintained?

Sir K. Joseph: I can give the House that assurance.

Mr. Peart: We accept the Minister's explanation. It is no easy matter. The Minister must rely on the best scientific advice. He gave an example of weak solutions of potassium, and it is obvious that the Schedule should not cover such cases. We accept what the Minister has said, and we know that under Clause 18 (6) he still has power to make changes as the occasion may demand.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, leave out line 41.

In line 45, column 2, leave out "1" and insert "7".

In line 46, column 2, leave out "1" and insert "3".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

6.7 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has had a most painstaking and conscientious scrutiny by hon. Members, and I am glad to say that it has had a general welcome at all its stages. The result of the scrutiny has been to make it a better Bill, particularly since in another place the Government had already put down thirty Amendments to meet suggestions which had been made. This inevitably left rather less work to be done in our Committee stage, but I express appreciation to hon. Members who have taken such trouble and shown such interest and enthusiasm in improving the Bill.
It is a relatively narrow Bill, dealing with only one aspect of radiological safety—namely, everything to do with radioactive waste. But perhaps the Committee stage has had a further value in that a number of Amendments were put down—none was accepted, because they did not deal with radioactive waste —ventilating a series of important implications for my right hon. Friend's colleagues. I can assure the House that

the speeches made on transport, on the safety of workers and on other implications of radioactive safety will be carefully studied by my right hon. Friend's colleagues.
It is true that much time in Committee was devoted to the problem of keeping the local authorities completely in the picture. No fewer than thirteen Amendments were devoted to the subject. But the House decided on Second Reading, entirely on the technical advice of the White Paper on which the Bill is based, that the control should be central and not local, and it was thus inevitable that the decision had to be made centrally. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has throughout given the House a series of specific assurances that local authorities and other public bodies will be kept fully informed about what goes on and, whenever their interests are directly involved in the way suggested by the Bill, will be consulted.
I think that that was the main subject discussed in Committee, but I want to draw attention to a point which has perhaps not been fully ventilated—when we can expect the appointed day. As the House realises, this will be nominated by order in council. There is at the moment complete control of the waste originating from the Atomic Energy Authority and from the nuclear sites. Large quantities are disposed of under existing Statute, and although that control was temporary, this Bill will make it permanent.
For the other users we shall need some time in which to prepare to enforce the Bill. That is to say, we shall need not only to appoint the inspectorate to decide on the question of the exemptions and to set up the structure of control, but, because there are such stringent penalties for the breach of any of the duties laid down in the Bill, we shall need to make sure that before the appointed day everything is ready; so that on the appointed day the registrations can immediately come into force and nobody can be made into a criminal simply for lack of administrative precautions. It will therefore be some little time before the appointed day can be named, but in the meantime the control that has already continuously been exercised by my right hon. Friends will continue.
This Bill, which has had such a general welcome and which has been improved by the stages through which it has gone, will provide a more solid and statutory base for the control of the greater quantities which can be expected in future of radioactive waste, and I am sure it will be a useful Measure.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Peart: We are pleased that this Bill is to be given its Third Reading. We on this side of the House have approached the Bill constructively throughout all its stages, and I think the Minister will recognise that we have done our work well.
I should like to pay tribute to my own colleagues who in Committee made many constructive suggestions, and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to this fact. I should like to mention in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who raised the question of standard symbols. Although the Amendment which was moved was not accepted, the Minister has agreed that the spirit of the Amendment should be carried out.
This Bill, which deals with the disposal of radioactive waste, brings the legislation up to date. As I have so often argued, we are now living in a nuclear age. New pressures have been created and our legislation must keep pace. There is also an urgent need to consolidate, and this the Bill does. The use of nuclear energy in our industries and the development of radioactive materials have demonstrated time and time again that our scientific thinking and practice have outstripped our legislative practice, so here as politicians we are trying to catch up with the scientists. There is still a long way to go. That is why I wish we had a central authority. That suggestion has been rejected. However, I cannot pursue that point now.
The Bill is concerned with environmental health and also with the health of the individual worker. The three principles of the Bill still remain—first, that there shall be national control; second, that there shall be two-tier control; and, third, that there shall be created a national disposal service. On national control, we argued in Committee and again today that there should be at all stages proper consultation with local authorities and public bodies.

Indeed, throughout the Committee stage we have pressed Amendments whereby certificates of registration and of authorisation should be provided adequately to the local authorities concerned, and not only to water undertakings but also river boards.
We had an interesting argument in connection with medical officers of health. I do not know whether this argument can be pursued again on Third Reading. I was sorry that powers relating to rights of entry which are given under this Bill do not go far enough in the sense that medical officers of health will be included. The Veale Report, which has been quoted so often, deals with this. In paragraph 81 this Report says:
The local authorities will look in the first instance to their medical officers of health for advice on radioactive waste and on radiation hazards generally.
This Report, publication of which the Minister was awaiting during the Committee stage, stresses the rôle of the local and public authorities in paragraph 78 and says:
The chief interest of local and public authorities arises from the disposal of radioactive wastes.
All I am stressing is that inevitably in the administration of this Measure the medical officers of health will play an important part, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) earlier. I am only sorry that even at this late stage rights of entry have not been granted. These will be key people, and we have not a large enough inspectorate. However, I will not pursue this argument; in any case, we have argued it so often.
The Veale Report mentions three categories of full-time health and safety staff, and they are to be found in paragraph 19. The conclusion of the Report is that we shall need in our industry and throughout our health services at least 200 people in category A and 300 people in category B. In other words, we are short of trained specialist staff, and although the Minister has given an assurance today that he will seek to expand the inspectorate, I think he will agree with the Veale Report and, indeed, with the Fleck Report which studied in particular health and safety in nuclear reactors and on those sites which are


controlled by the Atomic Energy Authority, as well as those which are partly the responsibility of the consortia. We have a terrific shortage.
Therefore, if we are to do our job well, if we are to have proper control of radioactive wastes and their disposal, we must build up trained personnel quickly and urgently. I hope that that will be the first concern of the Minister and of other Departments like the Ministry of Agriculture, who are responsible for authorisations in connection with the disposal of radioactive wastes which affect our soil, fisheries and so on. Therefore trained personnel, who are involved in this question of national control, are important.
If we are to have trained personnel operating, we must keep good records. I know that the Minister rejected the idea of a statutory register, but he said that in the administration of this Measure registers would be kept. This is important, because it is only right and proper that public bodies and private persons who may be concerned with building should know where radioactive wastes are disposed. There is a need for a central register and for careful records, and for these records to be compiled by trained staff for the benefit not only of the Minister but of local authorities and the public bodies concerned.
As to the second principle, two-tier control, we are having control of users by registration and control of accumulation or disposal by authorisation. We have tried in Committee, and even on Report, to improve that relationship between registration and authorisation.
Finally, on the question of the national disposal service, this will be dependent on whether or not the Minister builds up quickly his inspectorate which will work with the Government Departments. However, for the moment inevitably the experience of the Atomic Energy Authority will be such that it will do the main disposal work. On the other hand, a large percentage of the work will be done by the local authorities. They will also do most of the disposal work on the radioactive waste which will come from small premises and small industries in particular localities. There again, we come up against the question of the inspectorate.
In conclusion, I would say that I personally wish the Bill well, and should like to congratulate both Ministers on their courtesy in replying to the points we have put, even when we have disagreed on principle. It may well be, as I have said earlier, that this Bill is only the beginning. After all, the speed of scientific advance is such that legislation can quickly become dated. Since our deliberations in Committee, we have had the Veale Committee's Report, and indeed, the Minister of Health, whom I see here tonight, in reply to a question only the other day, announced safety precautions over a wide range of activities covering transport of radioactive materials by air, sea, rail and road.
Therefore, as we have argued so often, we are living in a period in which legislation can be out of date, and we, as an Opposition, have been ahead of the thinking of the Government on this matter. However, I will not be partisan, but will wish the Bill well and express the hope that it will be administered effectively.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Mason: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I agree that this is a much improved Bill. Having come from another place and having passed through its Committee stage here, it has been closely scrutinised, and I think that we have made some improvements to it.
To begin with, I hope that the Minister is satisfied that the Bill as amended will cover imports of radioactive substances. I visualise that radioactive substances and materials, isotopes and so on, will be coming from the isotopes division of the Atomic Energy Authority and also from various chemical laboratories at Amersham. This is a very splendid development, and one which I want to see, because the development of this new product, radioactive isotopes, will help our industry immensely. I hope that this will continue, so that we can have complete control over the exports of our radioactive isotopes.
I am particularly concerned because there are many research laboratories in industry and in the universities here and on the Continent, and I wish to ask whether at some time in the future they will be transferring some radioactive materials from place to place and from


country to country, unknown to our central authority. There may be co-operative efforts in research into the use of radioactive materials at the European Nuclear Research Organisation. Our own Atomic Energy Authority may want cooperation in research matters, which may involve exporting and importing radioactive materials to and from Euratom. In the development of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that may mean quite a lot of radioactive materials flowing in and out of the country in due course.
I should like to be assured that the Bill as amended will cover this, and also that the Minister is satisfied that its provisions will help. I understand that previous legislation did not cover the description required for the import and export of some of these radioactive materials. There is no doubt that it would be rather foolish for us to bring forward a Bill completely to control the deposits of radioactive materials and the accumulation of radioactive waste in this country unless there were stringent precautions and control over the movement into the country of radioactive isotopes which will themselves cause waste in due course.
I hope that the Minister is satisfied that the Bill also covers the disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear shipping. I notice that in the recent Report of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ships, Cmd. 957. in paragraph 171, it is stated:
Until international agreement is reached, it must be the responsibility of the Government of the State in which a nuclear ship is registered to take steps to ensure that no harmful discharges are permitted, and that the ship is capable of avoiding such discharge of radioactive waste in port or close waters.
Although we may not be facing that problem at the moment, we shall be in due course, and this legislation will stand for some time. It would, therefore, ask the Minister for an assurance that it will cover this particular radioactive discharge as well.
During the Committee stage, the Minister said that he would bring us up to date regarding the progress being made to obtain a recognised code of symbols for radioactive material containers. I understand that during the Committee stage he was awaiting news of progress made in the international committee, so that in due course we could have an internationally recognised

code of symbols. The Minister now has the power to act, and, as he rightly said in the Committee stage, if he thinks that there has been delay in the adoption of an international system, he could introduce his own. The Bill gives him power to do that. I should be very much obliged if he would now enlighten the House as to whether he is satisfied with the international progress being made, or whether he might, on the operative date, bring in regulations that will give us immediately our own national code of symbols covering radioactive material containers.
As my hon. Friend has said, this Bill is urgently required, and we are very pleased that the Government have brought it in. It is, generally speaking, an agreed Measure on a subject which has been causing us some concern, in view of the amount of radioactive waste which we are now producing in the country. At the Springfields works, we are producing 1,000 tons of solid radioactive waste per year, and we are dumping it in disused quarries. At Capenhurst, we are producing 200 tons of solid radioactive waste per year, and there again, we are dumping it in disused quarries. At Harwell, we are producing 750 tons per year, which is placed in drums and is being dumped on the bed of the English Channel or the Atlantic Ocean. At Amersham, we are producing 32 tons per year and transferring it to Harwell. In all, roughly 2,000 tons per year of solid radioactive waste comes from these establishments, and I have mentioned only a few of them.
These figures are not by any means inclusive, because they do not include effluent discharges into the open sea, tidal estuaries and the River Thames or discharges from hospitals into sewers. Neither do they include the high activity waste which is being stored in special buildings on some sites, nor high activity waste which is dumped in controlled areas. We were perturbed to notice that in America alone, they have already stored 65 million gallons of highly active waste, and this figure is gradually increasing as it is in this country. Therefore, I hope that, under the provisions of the Bill as now amended, the Minister will be able to encourage more research into the dumping and storing of this radioactive waste.
I notice from the Press today—and I am disturbed to see it—that British industrialists are still frowning on the use of radioactive substances in industry. This seems to me to be rather a stupid situation. We have a special isotope production division of the Atomic Energy Authority, and we are exporting more than all the other countries put together. Other industrial countries are taking advantage of these new techniques and aids to industry, and yet our own industry is shrinking from their use. This is not entirely new to me, because I recognised two years ago that British industry was not using these new aids as frequently as it should. I therefore raised the matter with the Prime Minister in this House on a number of occasions until eventually the Atomic Energy Authority agreed that there should be an industrial exhibition to be sent round the country trying to enlighten and educate British industrialists on the uses of these radioactive isotopes.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but on Third Reading we cannot have a very wide debate, as we have on Second Reading. I am afraid that he must be careful to keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Mason: I hope I shall, Mr. Speaker. I therefore hope that this Bill as amended will help them to overcome their fears. If they do not quickly recognise the advantages to be gained from their use, both in time and money, it may well seriously retard the advance of British industry.
Finally, this Bill completes the family of Acts required to watch over the development of our atomic energy industry and also its by-products. There were, indeed, many gaps in our legislation. Neither the Public Health Acts nor the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, covered adequately the safeguards required to control the use of radioactive substances or the dangers following upon their use.
I am satisfied that the Bill will go a long way towards solving the worrying problems which have confronted us. Suffice it to say that the local authorities, medical officers of health and water undertakers will feel more at ease. The Bill should erase from the minds of industrialists the fears which they have

hitherto felt and encourage them to reap the fruits of these new radioactive seeds and, what is most important, we shall all feel a lot safer.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: I do not wish to delay the House and I shall not take so long as my two hon. Friends, the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
Throughout all our proceedings on the Bill, I have associated myself with the general welcome which has been given to it by hon. Members on both sides. I regard it as a very important Bill indeed. In my view, it is one of the most important Bills to come before the House of Commons for some time, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who said earlier that the Press were at fault in giving no publicity at all to it. We have recently been considering other Bills such as the Betting and Gaming Bill and the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill, and the Press has seen that the attention of the public was drawn to them in their progress through the House of Commons. The same attention has not been directed to this very important Measure, which could possibly determine the future of millions of people in industry and in the country generally and of millions of young children. Indeed, it may well have a great influence upon the life, safety and health of millions of children yet unborn.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington that the Bill could have been improved if some of the constructive Amendments we proposed from time to time had been accepted. I have been concerned throughout about workers' consultation. Unfortunately, it was not to be, and I can only hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister has not closed his mind entirely to some form of workers' consultation on the disposal of radioactive waste. Perhaps I was not able to explain as I should have done exactly what I wanted done.
Like all hon. Members, I recognise that the scientists of this country and of the world have a good deal to learn about radioactive wastes and the consequences of the use of radioactive substances in industry, the Health Service and elsewhere. As the years go by and we gain experience in the whole subject, it may


be found that workers' consultation is of supreme importance. I leave it there. I know that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing and Local Government are aware that, even now, discussions are taking place within the Trades Union Congress about some of these points. I hope that they will support the T.U.C. when it brings forward proposals for trade union consultation in this matter.
I join in hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will have great success with his Bill. In my opinion, it represents a step in the right direction. I read in the Press some months ago that in certain parts of America radioactive material is disposed of by someone known as an "atomic junk man". I hope that in this country we have determined to deal with the disposal of radioactive waste in a more realistic fashion. In association with my hon. Friends, I wish the right hon. Gentleman every success in dealing with this new and hazardous problem.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I give a general welcome to the Bill although, in Committee, together with several hon. Members opposite, I felt concerned about one matter raised in connection with Clause 3, which deals with the registration of mobile radioactive apparatus. In particular, when Clause 3 was being discussed, I felt it necessary to direct attention to the transportation of radioactive wastes and other materials, and I had occasion then to refer to an incident which happened in Harborough.
A lorry laden with 10 cwt. of cyanide of potassium was going along a country road when two cwt. of this poisonous substance fell off, but the lorry proceeded on its way, the driver being unaware that he had left behind on a country road in the middle of a village enough poison to kill many thousands of people. He parked his lorry overnight by an adjoining village green, still unaware that he had left behind 2 cwt. of cyanide of potassium, and thereafter he drove off to the docks without even checking his load. He had left 8 cwt. of cyanide of potassium unchecked and unguarded overnight on a open lorry in the middle of my constituency. Fortunately, no one died as a result of the incident. A few

worms suffered, but there were no human casualties.
In Committee, I asked my right hon. Friend whether regulations could be made to prevent a similar incident involving radioactive substances, but my request at that time failed. I felt rather strongly and was compelled to abstain from voting on the matter in Committee. I was, however, told by my right hon. Friend that the Minister of Transport was hoping to introduce draft regulations to deal with the transport of radioactive substances at an early date.
I have seen nothing so far. The matter is really of vital importance. In this particular instance at Ashby Parva, the driver was prosecuted by the police on the only charge under which he was liable then, that of having an insecure load. He had his containers of cyanide properly labelled as containing poisonous substances. When he came before the magistrates, he was fined a total of £20 for having an insecure load and leaving the poison lying in an English country lane. The regulations that were in force then are the same today. I can see nothing in the Bill as it now stands to prevent a similar thing happening to kegs of radioactive waste, with, perhaps, far more disastrous consequences should one of them burst, as did a keg of cyanide of potassium in Ashby Parva, scattering the material in the road.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had a splendid run. It is very difficult to conceive how his remarks can be directed at anything but a complaint about an omission from the Bill. He cannot complain about omissions from the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Farr: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was most concerned to call attention to the fact that there appears to be nothing to stop containers of radioactive waste being treated the same as sacks of flour or bags of vegetables, or, indeed, with even less care than boxes of eggs are treated on lorries today.

6.40 p.m.

Mrs. Butler: If I join in the chorus of approval for the Bill, I hope that the Minister will not become too complacent. It is more than a year now since I and some of my hon. Friends drew attention in an Adjournment debate to the dangers of the concentration of radioactive waste


in sewers, and we were assured by the Minister that eventually legislation would be introduced.
First, I want to urge the Minister to bring the Bill into operation as soon as he possibly can. I was rather disturbed when he said that this would take some time, but he gave no indication of how long it would take. Throughout our discussions we have emphasised the urgency of this matter. We have waited a long time for the Bill, and all the time radioactive waste has been and is being discharged. It is, therefore, important that the Bill should come into operation at the earliest possible date. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter urgent attention, particularly as staffing and other matters which require a great deal of detailed attention are involved.
Secondly, the limits of the Bill have prevented us giving as much attention as we should to methods of disposal of radioactive waste. We have only touched on the question of a national disposal service. Hon Members have been slightly out of order in referring to the problems and methods of disposal, but we have not discussed an integral part of the problem with which the Bill sets out to deal.
I am also distressed that the Minister has not taken further the question of consultation and co-operation with local authorities, water undertakers, river boards and other public bodies, which we have urged upon him. I know that many Welsh authorities are very concerned at the moment because they know that local authorities which take water from Wales are monitoring those water supplies but the local authorities from which the water is taken have no knowledge of the results of that monitoring.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke) indicated dissent.

Mrs. Butler: The Minister shakes his head.

Mr. Brooke: I was shaking my head because the results of the monitoring are published.

Mrs. Butler: I am assured by hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies that local authorities are very

worried, because other local authorities are taking water from Wales and carrying out their own private monitoring but the supplying local authorities have no knowledge of the results of the monitoring. There is this difficulty in certain areas, and we have been urging the need for greater co-ordination between all the people concerned with this problem. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to go further to meet this very valid point.
Thirdly, I hope that the Bill will not be the last word on the subject. When I said a short while ago on Report that this was a pilot Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary nodded his head, I thought in approval. This is the beginning of an examination of the problem of the disposal of radioactive waste and, as the years go by, more legislation will be needed to bring the position up to date. I always feel, when a Bill like this reaches its Third Reading and is on the last lap, "This will be quoted for years to come as the last word on the subject". I hope that that will not be so. I hope that it will not be regarded as the law of the Medes and Persians and that the Minister will watch the subject very carefully.
Many points have not been covered. We are experimenting in this Bill and we do not know how it will work out. As the Minister said that he can legislate again, I hope that he will not hesitate to do so if the problem grows as we think it will. I hope that he will bring in another Bill to cover the points which have been raised by this Bill, but which, because it is limited, have not been incorporated in it. I welcome the Bill very much, but I hope that the Government will recognise that it is a limited Measure and that a great deal more still has to be done with regard to this problem, particularly methods of disposal, before we can feel that we have covered every aspect of public safety.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: As a new Member of the House, I am pleased to have been able to take an interest in the Bill from its earliest inception and to have served on the Standing Committee. I am also pleased to have done so because the Windscale incident occurred in my constituency. It was as a result of incidents and reports that I received that I


became anxious about what the Ministry was prepared to do in future. The Bill has been welcomed, but I hope that it is only a forerunner. If and when the Ministry finds that there are difficulties in the way and that it wants more authority and power, I hope that it will not hesitate to bring another Bill before the House to enable it to obtain that authority and power.
There are one or two things about which I am a little anxious. I was a member of a local authority for many years, and I am a little anxious about the position of local authorities in this matter. Clause 1 (2) states:
Any application for registration under this section shall be made to the Minister, specifying … 
It then goes on to specify certain things. The last words are:
and containing such other information as may be prescribed.
When an application is made to the Minister, why could not a duplicate copy be made and sent to the local authority concerned? I hope that the Minister will consider that point. Local authorities will have a great deal of work to do under this Bill.
Unfortunately, through an unfortunate incident, I was not able in Committee to express an opinion on Clause 9. Subsection (5) reads:
Where an authorisation granted under section six of this Act requires or permits radioactive waste to be removed to a place provided by a local authority as a place for the deposit of refuse … 
and so on. We all have experience of refuse dumps as we know them. We know the type of material that is deposited—waste paper and the like. In addition, on the instruction of the Ministry, radioactive waste is to be deposited. The danger is that unscrupulous persons will come along and dump radioactive waste on refuse tips unbeknown to anyone else. That will be dangerous, especially to children. We know what happened in Scotland to three children.
We must ensure that radioactive waste is buried sufficiently deep. It has been said that refuse disposal areas will eventually be made into playfields and the like, and for this reason I am anxious about the disposal of radioactive waste on refuse dumps. I hope that after the Bill is passed the Minister will have

another look at this matter and ensure that there is every safeguard, for this involves the responsibility of local authorities and is an important matter. Every precaution should be taken to ensure that containers are buried sufficiently deep and not merely dumped on refuse heaps.
My experience over four or five weeks as a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill was a very valuable one. My hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill as a whole and hope that the Minister will in due course pay attention to the further points which we have raised.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: In adding my welcome to the Bill, I would emphasise the point made by a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), that we are groping in the dark with regard to how to deal with this problem. I hope that my right hon. Friend will watch the operation of his powers under the Bill and, if necessary, not be afraid to amend the Bill or to introduce fresh legislation.
I feel that the Bill will help to alleviate some of the worry which has been caused to people living near plants where radioactive substances are used. There is a tremendous amount of worry in my constituency, partly because people have not understood what was involved and partly because they have not felt that there were sufficient controls and regulations relating to the disposal of radioactive substances. I should be completely out of order if I were to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), but the transporting of radioactive substances through my constituency causes me equal worry.
Once again, I welcome the Bill, but I hope that it will not be regarded as the final word should any alteration be found necessary in practice.

6.53 p.m.

Mrs. Hart: I join my hon. Friends in welcoming the Bill. As a new Member of the House, I derived great benefit from my experience as a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. I particularly enjoyed observing the technique of the Parliamentary Secretary in replying to our arguments, for he has a very special technique which is highly developed.
There are a number of points on which the Opposition have not been satisfied. There is one issue on which local authorities and other bodies in Scotland have expressed considerable dissatisfaction. Local authorities are not to have the powers they had hoped to have to protect people in their own areas. This matter was argued at great length during the Committee stage. We regard it as a great pity that a medical officer of health will not have the right of entry to premises where radioactive waste is stored and to make certain regulations where he thinks necessary and that he will, in effect, have to accept the word of the Minister in relation to the health of the people in his area. The Bill would have been better had it given more powers to local authorities.
In our discussion of Clause 8 during the Committee stage, the Minister gave me an assurance that he would consult the Medical Research Council about whether it would be possible when the annual statistics were published for details to be given of the total amount of waste for which authorisations had been granted. This arose out of our discussion about freedom for independent scientific research, particularly into the genetic elements involved in the disposal of radioactive waste. I was then rather worried about it because the Minister had said that the information could be made available to independent scientists only through official bodies such as the Medical Research Council. I felt that this was a danger and a limitation upon scientific freedom in a sphere in which it was particularly important that every possible freedom should exist for scientific investigation.
I hope that the Minister has by now been able to consult the Medical Research Council and can tell us that, since the register will not be fully available, it will be possible for statistics covering the country as a whole and also each region to be made available to any scientist who wishes to see them, so that independent estimates may be made about the possible dangers into which we may be running.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) in her concern about the methods of disposal of waste, which in a way come under the Bill, and yet we have not discussed them

adequately. I hope the Minister will regard the time as opportune to ask some of his scientific advisers to prepare for him a report on the best methods of disposal of waste. The Minister will be aware of the many international discussions which have been taking place, the conferences at Geneva and elsewhere, attended by scientists of various countries, including our own experts, where it has been made clear that there is a growing divergence of opinion among the scientific experts themselves about what is and what is not a safe method of disposal of radioactive wastes and that the assumption that disposal at sea is safe and not to be challenged, which has been acted upon for a number of years, holds very great dangers. Perhaps there is good reason for suggesting that for the time being, until we know more about these things, and until the scientists find themselves in agreement, we ought to store safely on land rather than dispose of these materials at sea.
I would mention here Mr. D. G. Arnott, Director of the Radio Isotopes Laboratory at the London Hospital Medical School, whom I quoted during the Committee stage as saying:
You should only seek to reassure in proportion as you yourselves understand the facts and are convinced by them, that reassurance is justified. If you go beyond that you are gambling, and will end by reaping public discredit.
Mr. Arnott also says that it is not within his power to reassure anybody, and that reassurance comes from within. He says that he himself is utterly satisfied that the radioactive effluent disposed of in the Thames is absolutely safe and need cause no concern to anybody. However, he also says:
But I am not happy about Windscale's discharges to the Irish Sea, and I will not be a party to sliding over inconvenient points merely in order to create a climate of 'reassurance' which I do not myself share.
I believe that Mr. Arnott is serving on one of the Government's expert committees concerned with the matter of radioactive materials, and his word is the word of someone having a great deal of authority. I believe that he touches a point which is perhaps at the root of our concern, and that is that reassurance does not serve if it is not amply and demonstrably justified. I believe it would be a very good thing and would help to give real reassurance


to people if the Minister were able to ask some scientist to consider at this point, after so much more work has been done on the question, the problem of how a national disposal service could dispose of radioactive waste and what effect this might have on the administration of the Bill, particularly from the genetic point of view. Throughout the Committee stage it was stressed on our side that it is the genetic dangers with which we are concerned. It is probably highly appropriate that the Bill should be following the Population (Statistics) Act by which it is hoped that further information can be gathered about the genetic dangers to the population.
We are concerned with ensuring that technological progress does not do harm to national health. When we are concerned with the operation of the Bill in future and with the further Measures that may be necessary in the course of time, we should remember that technological progress in itself is no virtue if it endangers public health in any field. Technology must serve human need and not be allowed to dictate to humanity, in this country or anywhere else. I welcome the Bill. I wish that it had been stronger in some respects, but I hope that its successful administration will end a period of confusion in which the public have been rightly concerned about the problems of radioactivity.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: Those of us on both sides of the House who have been working in Committee on the Bill give it our blessing, and soon the House and the people will have an Act which we are told in the Long Title is
to regulate the keeping and use of radioactive material, and to make provision as to the disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
In Committee we tried hard to improve the Bill. The Minister was sometimes accommodating. He possesses the power of pretending that he is conceding. Sometimes he seems to say, "I might concede but, on the other hand, it will be difficult" and there were moments when the atmosphere in Committee was radioactive. However, we congratulate the Government on the fact that this is the first Bill of its kind, and like the first of everything it is a prototype. This is the prototype of further

Acts of Parliament that must come in future.
Clause 1 states that as from the appointed day no person shall have the use of radioactive materials except on certain conditions. I am cutting out the legal phraseology and just going into the semantics of the matter. Paragraph (1, b) says that he cannot use or keep this material unless he has been exempted from registration under that Clause. We are not told how he is to be exempted, who will exempt him and why. But this is power and we in Committee wanted to control it.
I do not want to sound pompous, but for fifteen years in the House I and others have been pioneering in matters connected with the use of atomic energy and radioisotopes. Some of us have asked questions about deaths from leukaemia and the effect of fall-out. Under Clause 5 local authorities, whether they like it or not, have to lump it if the Minister directs that they must take radioactive waste. The different forms of radioactivity are matters of vital importance to local authorities. They must understand what kind of radioactive materials they may have to handle. These materials emit alpha, beta or gamma rays or neutrons. Some materials emit rays and some emit waves, and the rays penetrate the deeper. Some rays will penetrate not feet but yards of concrete.
I do not want to name any place, because I do not want to have my own local authorities coming after me, but I should like to know whether this requirement will be made of local authorities which have not the money to arrange for proper dumping of this waste. How are we to be sure that the waste will be dumped at the right depth and that adequate protection will be provided?
We have had to examine the Bill very carefully and look at all these things, but, as usual, we shall learn more about them pragmatically or by rule of thumb. If as we go along matters crop up and action must be taken by the Minister I hope that in the interest of public health the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to take immediate action. I am sure that the House will be prepared to give him the necessary powers.
On both sides of the Committee and of the House we have tried our best to make a job of the Bill. As I have said, it is the first of its type. No doubt it still contains all kinds of difficulties but in this age of atomic energy and the use of radioisotopes somebody had to take the plunge. I am glad that it was taken by the Minister. I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will serve the purpose which we all envisage.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have welcomed and improved the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his minute knowledge of the Clauses. I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for his constructive and critical co-operation and for the manner in which he has discharged his duty in leading for the Opposition throughout our debates, not letting us get away with anything but at the same time never seeking to hold up the Bill, which I think all of us are anxious to see on the Statute Book.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) asked whether there might be a long delay before the Bill is brought into operation. No time will be lost by the Government. We are anxious to see it in force at the earliest possible date. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary thought it only right, however, to tell the House on Third Reading that there will be a good deal of work to be done. We, on our part, will proceed with that necessary work as quickly as we can.
We regard the statutory requirements of the Bill as the minimum. We want to improve on them. There are certain requirements of consultation and the like. We want to do more than the law requires and err on the side of safety. No one is more convinced than the Government themselves that this is a dangerous and partly unknown field and one in which we must certainly not take risks.
The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) asked about imports. There is power to control imports already, under Section 2 of the 1948 Act, in the hands of my noble Friend the Minister for

Science. Once imports are in the country any user of them must be registered if radioactive waste is at all involved. The hon. Member also asked about nuclear-powered ships. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I have no doubt that the hon. Member is familiar with the Report of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ships which was presented to Parliament a couple of months ago. My right hon. Friend has that in hand. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I too, must be careful not to get out of order, but I invite his attention, if he is not already aware of it, to a long statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health two days ago which he will find in columns 695–6 of HANSARD for that date.
I have nothing further to report about the progress of international agreement on symbols. We are anxious to see action taken. It will be in our power to take action before if it seems that international agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable time. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Pentland) expressed fears about radioactive waste being put recklessly on refuse dumps. No radioactive waste will be put on refuse dumps at all unless it has been decided by the competent authorities that that is the best and safest way of disposing of it. I hope that it will allay any fears in his constituency if I say that Clause 9 (5) states specifically that:
… if the authorisation contains any provision as to the manner in which the radioactive waste is to be dealt with after its removal to that place, … 
that is a place for the deposit of refuse— it shall be the duty of the local authority
to deal with it in the manner indicated in the authorisation.
The Bill is, therefore, quite specific about that. There is no reason why authorisation should not include proper conditions, and then there would be a statutory duty on the local authorities to abide by them.
I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) when speaking for Scottish local authorities which would have liked certain concurrent powers. The essence of the Bill


is that there must be one authority and that must be a central authority. That was a feature of the report of the panel on which the Bill is based. I cannot believe that we should increase security or improve the operation of these controls if we duplicated a national system of control with a local system of control.
I have taken note of the hon. Lady's interest in the availability of statistics that may be collected. I have not anything to report so far about the views of the Medical Research Council, but certainly I should like to make statistics available rather than conceal them. We have nothing to hide. The hon. Lady will appreciate that any figures involving national security cannot be given. I am under an obligation to submit an annual report every year which is presented to Parliament and published. We shall be giving certain information as soon as the Act comes into force in our annual report about the working of the Act and the administration of it, and I shall certainly consider how helpful we can be in the matter of statistics.
Finally, the hon. Member for Barnsley said, I thought somewhat optimistically, that this completes the family of Acts. I am not at all sure that its parents are never going to have any more children. There will not be another one immediately. That, I believe, is quite customary, and the Government never bring in legislation which is premature. It is all very carefully prepared, completed and well-shaped. We certainly must keep all these difficult and dangerous matters under review. I have very little doubt that one day further legislation will be required in the light of the additional knowledge which will have been gained by them. Meanwhile, if I may humbly say so, I think that Parliament has done a good piece of work in shaping this Bill. It undoubtedly fills a gap, and it is the hope of every one of us that it will be effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(THE COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE, AND THE BOARDS.)

7.15 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out
 remedial gymnasts and speech therapists
and to insert:
and remedial gymnasts.

Mr. Speaker: It occurred to me that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment to the First Schedule, in page 14, line 8, in the name of the Minister and all succeeding Amendments down to and including the Amendment in page 17, line 29.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your indication that with this Amendment we may discuss the six other Amendments to which you have referred. It is necessary for me to move this Amendment to provide for the exclusion of speech therapists from the Bill and the consequential arrangements which flow therefrom.
The basic principle in regard to this I stated on Second Reading, when I said:
I agree with my hon. Friends that we would not want to compel any organisation to come within the terms of the Bill. If we are not able to persuade the speech therapists of the advantages of remaining covered by the Bill I will take the responsibility of moving an Amendment to exclude them."—'[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 917.]
I am sure this principle is right. Inclusion should be regarded as a privilege, not as a penalty, and entry should be by way of conviction and not compulsion. I have conscientiously tried to convince the speech therapists. I tried unsuccessfully after the Second Reading. In Committee, several hon. Members expressed themselves strongly on the advisability of the speech therapists coming in, in their own interests, and I undertook to make further efforts. I think that the rest of the story of the efforts that I made perhaps emerge most


clearly from my correspondence with the speech therapists which, with the permission of the College of Speech Therapists, I shall read. I wrote to them on 2nd February.
I for my part remain convinced that it would be unfortunate, both in general and for your profession in particular, if I had to move amendments excluding speech therapists from the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the College will even now reconsider their position; if a further discussion with me would be of help I should be very willing to meet you again in order to clarify the points which seem to me of major importance and to learn from you whether there are any amendments which can be made, without prejudice to the general scheme of the Bill, to allay the doubts —unnecessary, in my view—at present felt by your members.
To that they answered on 8th February:
We are, of course, very willing to come and see you, should you so desire. You will appreciate, however, that the decision of the profession was reached after thorough consideration over a period of years, of all the preliminaries leading to the Bill, the Bill itself, the Second Reading, and the reports of the Committee Stage. We are convinced there are no amendments which, without prejudice to the structure of the Bill, would make it acceptable to our profession.
The membership of the College of Speech Therapists adheres to the conclusion communicated in my letter of 27th January, and I now finally confirm the request to you to move the amendment to exclude Speech Therapists from the Bill, at the Report Stage.
We must appreciate the personal attention you have given us in this matter.
I wrote again:
I think it is right at this stage to put formally on record my view, and that I think of Members of Parliament generally, that the profession's decision is an unfortunate one. I have no doubt that your fears as to the possible ill effects on speech therapists which might result from the Bill are unfounded; on the contrary, I think that participation in the scheme for statutory registration would bring real benefits to the profession.
As I have already indicated, I am unable to accept the argument that speech therapists are not a profession supplementary to medicine, or that their position is essentially different from that of the other professions covered by the Bill. It follows, therefore, that when the amendments you ask for have been made and the Bill has become law, it will be necessary for speech therapists, unlike other supplementary professions, to continue to be subject to regulations on the same lines as the National Health Service (Medical Auxiliary) Regulations, 1954. Courses of training leading to qualifications entitling the holder to employment in the National Health Service will thus continue, as at present, to require the approval of the Minister of Health.

I should like to add that I and my officers are at your disposal if at any future time you should feel that further discussions might be of value.
To that they replied on 7th March:
We welcome your decision to move the necessary amendments at the Report stage to exclude the profession from the Bill. This as you know is the corporate wish of the profession… We note the profession will continue with regulations similar to those existing at present.
In due course we shall be very glad to take up your kind offer of further discussions.
On behalf of the members of the College, once again I should like to convey to you and your officers most sincere thanks for all the help you have given us.
That is the position at which we arrived.
As the House will see, there are no hard feelings between us and the speech therapists about our view as to what is the best course for them and themselves believing in the Tightness of their view. They clearly and unequivocally object to inclusion. I am honouring the undertaking which I gave to move Amendments for their exclusion, without in any way altering my view. If at any time in the future the speech therapists come to take a different view, the machinery of Clause 10 is available to them.
There are no serious, let alone, insuperable, mechanical or consequential difficulties about the composition of the Council. The other Amendments which we are now discussing deal with that aspect of the matter. The basic principle for the composition of the Council is to maintain the numerical equality between the representative Members on the one hand and the medical members on the other. It follows, therefore, that now the number of medical members must be reduced by one to conform to that principle. As the House will see, at present there are eight representative members provided for by paragraph 1 (1, c) of the First Schedule and there are eight medical members comprising two under paragraph 1 (1, b) and six under (d), (e) and (f).
The House will agree that the simple solution is to reduce the number of members appointed by the Minister of Health from four to three and to provide that of those only one instead of two must be a registered medical practitioner. That is the point of the Amendments in page 14, lines 15 and 18.
No other changes are necessary and the total membership of the Council will thus be 21 instead of 23. By these Amendments, we have met the position imposed on us by the unwillingness of the speech therapists to come into the scheme.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said and I think that he has proved to the House that he has done his very best to persuade speech therapists to come into the Bill. I asked him whether at the eleventh hour he would try again, as on the first occasion he had laryngitis and perhaps could not bring sufficient pressure to bear upon them.
I must confess that if I had not been associated with these negotiations, I would not have believed that any professional body would have refused to have been associated with the Bill. It is astonishing that, having had it carefully explained to them on two or three occasions that it would enhance their professional status—and I have written letters rather similar to those written by the Minister—still the speech therapists have adopted the very bad advice of people who feel that it is better for them to remain outside the Bill's provisions.
The Minister has had no option but to move the first Amendment and, of course, all the related Amendments are consequential. I thank him for trying once again to persuade this group to join the other supplementary professions and I think that we all deplore the fact, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been successful.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for having so amply fulfilled the undertaking which he gave at an earlier stage that, unless the decision were taken by the speech therapists, he would himself take the initiative to remove them from the Bill. I do not regard their decision as quite so tragic as does my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). Indeed, the measure of the case for bringing them into the Bill and the measure of the arguments which my right hon. and learned Friend has advanced to try to persuade them is a measure of the strength of their case on the other side. They obviously feel, as

I do, that the arguments on both sides are fairly evenly weighted. I know that it is only after the greatest care and deliberation that they have come down on the side which they have chosen.
I was particularly glad to hear the very clear reference which my right hon. and learned Friend made to the fact that Clause 10 provides a door which can be opened for them at a later stage. He made it perfectly clear tonight that there would be no grudging acceptance of a proposal from them—it may not be for a period of years—if they decide, on reflection, to change their views.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of how important is the compromise represented by the Schedule in securing support for the Bill. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, he will use his influence to make certain that no changes are made in the very carefully balanced composition of the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF REGISTERS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 47, at the end to insert:
being such fees as the Council considers will produce not more than the sums required to defray the reasonable expenses of the Council under this Act".
This Amendment is pursuant to an undertaking which I gave in Committee about the fees to be charged. I then enunciated what I think is the objective of us all in this matter when I said:
Clearly, we want to make sure that the boards and the Council operate as economically as possible and that the liability on the people practising these professions by way of fees, both initial registration and retention fees, is kept as low as possible. That is an aim which we would all share and which I certainly have closely in mind.
I ventured also to indicate what I thought was perhaps the opposite danger in this matter and I said:
While we want to have every incentive to economy … we do not want to run into the opposite danger of tying the hands of the Council too tightly before we know all the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 28th January, 1960; c. 23–5.]
I had especially in mind in that context the desirability of leaving the Council free, for example, to accumulate funds for the acquisition of premises, or for other matters.
On the consideration which I promised to give to the matter and Which I have now been able to give to it, I have devised this Amendment as being the best way of steering a middle course between those two possible dangers. The Amendment is designed to reinforce the need for economy without sacrificing the flexibility of financial arrangements which the Council ought to have. It therefore imposes on the Council a statutory duty to refrain from seeking to prescribe fees at a level higher than that needed to meet the reasonable expenses of the scheme, but it would not prevent the Council from accumulating funds for the sort of purposes which I have indicated.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting apprehensions expressed by Members on both sides lest the fee to be charged would be too great a strain on the members of the supplementary professions. He has met the wishes of everybody who spoke on that matter. The members of these professions should not feel that what they are being asked to contribute is in any sense a strain on their rather limited resources.

Sir H. Linstead: I add my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend and reinforce what the right hon. Lady has said. I am sure that this will go a long way towards reassuring those who were rather frightened of excessive fees.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20 at end to insert:
,or
(d) in consequence of his practical experience in the relevant profession, he is competent to practise that profession".

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the Amendment in page 4, line 23, to leave out "(c)" and to insert" (d)".

Mr. Walker-Smith: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker. These Amendments are concerned with the procedure for admission to the initial register, which is dealt with in Clause 3 (2), and arises out of an undertaking which I gave in Committee.
In the Bill as originally presented, a qualification coupled with practical experience could be an entry into the profession. During the Committee stage, I moved to widen this to enable people who combine training and practical experience of an appropriate nature to be considered for admission to the initial register. I made it clear at the time that the term "training" was intended in a wide sense to include, for example, apprenticeship and personal training. I also undertook, after discussion in Committee, to consider whether we could widen the field still further so as to introduce the concept of competence instead of or as well as training.
The Amendment does that by introducing a fourth criterion, which will be Clause 3 (2, d). It will allow a person to be registered if he has had enough personal experience to make him competent to practice his profession. Under this new criterion there is no requirement as to training, but practical experience and resulting competence are enough for admission to the initial register. With this added to the Bill, there should be no risk of any competent practitioner being excluded from consideration for admission. This new criterion is in addition to and is not in substitution of the criterion of training plus experience. This is retained by Clause 3 (2, c) and will operate in appropriate cases.
The second Amendment, which we are also discussing, is simply to provide that the new criterion, like the other three, shall be applied retrospectively where that is necessary and appropriate.

Dr. Summerskill: Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has devised a form of words which will meet the requests made to him from both sides in Committee. At first sight, it must seem curious to anyone who has not considered the matter that any member of a supplementary profession should be put on a register without any training, but under these peculiar circumstances we decided that there were people who had plenty of experience but could not necessarily produce proofs of training. I am glad that the criterion of acceptance is simply one of confidence. I am sure that if this is followed no mistakes need be made.

Sir H. Linstead: I add my thanks briefly. This is a very liberal provision, but, I think, rightly so, because when the House of Commons is proposing to shut the door by creating new standards, it is only proper that every existing practitioner should be brought inside the door before it is shut. In so far as this errs on the liberal side, that is a very wise leaning for the Minister to prefer.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I also thank the Minister for the consideration given to the arguments of a number of us in Committee on this matter. I welcome the Amendment. There was a danger of a number of very worthy people being excluded owing to different interpretations of the word "training ", and we are all pleased to see that he will welcome into the scope of this Bill all those who have given a lifetime of service in the professions, particularly in chiropody, even though actual particulars of their training have been lost in the mists of time. I thank him once again, both on my own behalf and on behalf of certain of my constituents, whose case I have put to him and to his predecessors.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 23, leave out "(c)" and insert "(d)". —[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Clause 9.—(REMOVAL OF NAMES FROM REGISTER FOR CRIME, INFAMOUS CONDUCT, ETC.)

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 19 to 21 and to insert:
(c) such a person is convicted by any court in the United Kingdom of having falsely or fraudulently procured the entry of his name on the register maintained by the board.
I move this on behalf of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who is unable to be here today. I move it in tentative, if not in interrogative, form, because I have to confess that my attendance at these proceedings has been lacking in assiduity. Its theme is to ensure that cases of fraud, in particular fraudulent entry of a name in a register, should be found by courts of law rather than by a disciplinary committee. Other things being equal, it is right that the courts of law, which are accustomed to the difficult task of finding fraud, should remain entrusted with the

task unless there is good reason for taking it away from them.
I can well understand, under Clause 9 (1, b), that in the case of a person who
… is judged by the disciplinary committee to be guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect;
there is a strong case for saying that the committee would have special knowledge of what is or is not infamous conduct, and should be entrusted with that task because it might have qualifications which a judge might lack. But the simple issue of whether or not a person's name has been fraudulently entered in a register is something which a court of law handles every week. What is the objection to leaving the finding in a case like that to a court of law? If there is no objection I suggest that on constitutional and legal grounds it should deal with the question.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will try to answer the point put with characteristic clarity and moderation by my hon. and learned Friend. As I promised my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), whose absence today we understand, that I would do during the Committee stage, I have studied this point. I appreciate the motives which both he and my hon. and learned Friend have in mind.
I should perhaps make it clear that there is no question of shutting out the jurisdiction of the courts and that in the appropriate cases it will still be the court which will decide whether there has been a fraudulent entry on the register. Although this Amendment arises on Clause 9, I should refer my hon. and learned Friend to the provisions of Clause 7, whereby a person may be prosecuted for fraudulently procuring the entry of a name on the register.
I now turn to subsection (1, c). The disciplinary committee can remove a name from the register if it is satisfied that it has been fraudulently entered. As the Bill stands, the disciplinary committee can proceed under subsection (1, c) either after a conviction under Clause 7 or, if it is satisfied, without such a conviction. Ordinarily, the best way in which the disciplinary committee may be satisfied that there has been a fraudulent entry will be the fact of a conviction by the court under the provisions of Clause 7.
The question is: why is the other method needed at all? It is needed to


deal with cases which come to light only after a lapse of time but whose fraudulent aspect is clear when they do come to light. Under the Amendment these cases, albeit culpably and patently fraudulent, might remain on the register, for the reason that the procedures under Clause 7 are of a summary nature; that is to say, they are procedures undertaken before petty sessions. As my hon. and learned Friend will know, summary proceedings must be instituted within six months of the commission of the offence, under Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. It is to catch cases which reveal themselves belatedly but clearly as being cases of fraudulent entry that we require this provision.
I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the position is properly safeguarded, because a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is provided under subsection (3), and subsection (4, c) ensures that where such an appeal is made the removal of the name from the register does not take place until that appeal is appropriately disposed of. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that these provisions, which are broadly in line with the provisions already enacted in Section 35 (1) of the Medical Act, 1956, and Section 13 (1) of the Opticians Act, 1958, are both necessary and appropriate, and will withdraw his Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I would have preferred an Amendment allowing the prosecution a longer period than six months under the petty sessional jurisdiction. At the same time, I fully appreciate the force of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said; indeed, the precedents are very strong. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10.—(POWER TO EXTEND OR RESTRICT APPLICATION OF ACT.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out "and" and insert "(2)".

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House also to

discuss the Amendments in page 11, line 9, line 11, line 15, line 25 and line 28, all in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The substantive Amendment in the Clause is one to which we shall come later, but these Amendments arise from the opportunity taken to improve the drafting of this important Clause. The Amendment moved splits the first subsection into two parts, and the Amendments which go with it simply make the necessary consequential and drafting changes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 9, leave out "the recommendation they may" and insert:
a recommendation under the foregoing subsection they may, subject to the following subsections".

In line 11, leave out "above" and insert "of the foregoing subsection".

In line 15, leave out "above" and insert "of the foregoing subsection".

In line 25, leave out "above" and insert "of the foregoing subsection".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 27, at the end to insert:
(2) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.
This is the substantive Amendment to the Clause, and its purport is quite clear. It substitutes the affirmative for the negative procedure in respect of orders made by the Privy Council under the Clause to add or omit professions in the scheme. The Amendment is moved following the promise to reconsider the nature of Parliamentary procedure under the Clause, expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: It falls to my lot to continue the catalogue, perhaps monotonous but no less sincere, of thanks to the Minister for having met the points raised by the Opposition in Committee. We felt that a change as important as one adding a profession to this Bill, or taking a profession out of it, was worthy of at any rate affirmative procedure. I am glad


that the Minister has concurred with our view.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made, in lne 28, leave out "the foregoing subsection" and insert "this section'.

Clause 12.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED ON THE PRIVY COUNCIL.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, to leave out "two" and to insert "three".
The effect of the Amendment is to increase the quorum of the Privy Council for the purpose of exercising any powers under the Act from two, as proposed in the original Bill, to three. In Committee the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) moved to increase the number to four. I think he pointed out then that there was a disadvantage in having a quorum of only two, in that there are in fact two Ministers of Health, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister of Health in Scotland. That would have the disadvantage that any decision of the Privy Council could be taken by the two Departmental Ministers primarily concerned.
We have sought to meet that point. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to fix the quorum for this purpose at four, because the quorum of the Privy Council when Her Majesty is herself in Council is only three, and it would clearly be inapposite to have a larger quorum for this purpose.
Having excluded the possibilities which are inappropriate for one reason or another, we are left, on the Sherlock Holmes principle, with a solution by exclusion, which is to fix the number at three, which is what the Amendment does, and I hope that it commends itself to the House.

Mr. K. Robinson: I was always taught that half a loaf was better than no bread. In this case we have been given precisely half a loaf. In Committee we felt that such were the powers of the Privy Council under the Bill that it would be wrong if it became the practice, as it could have become as the Bill was then drafted, for Privy Council functions to be exercised by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now that the number has

been increased from two to three, that is no longer possible, and I hope that it will not lead the right hon. and learned Gentleman to too much inconvenience in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 12, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 31.
This Amendment has already been discussed. It is on the same point as the affirmative Resolution.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule.—(CONSTITUTIONS OF THE COUNCIL AND BOARDS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 14, line 8, leave out "twenty-three" and insert "twenty-one".

In line 15, leave out "four" and insert "three".

In line 18, leave out from "whom" to "and" in line 19 and insert
one only shall be a registered medical practitioner".

In line 21, leave out "eight" and insert "seven".

In page 16, leave out line 17.

In page 17, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, to leave out from "succession" to end of line 14 and to insert "and a common seal".
This is a somewhat technical Amendment, the intention of which is to bring the Bill into line with the repeal of the law of mortmain by the Charities Bill which has completed its passage through another place and which received a Second Reading in this House on 28th April. The Charities Bill makes similar Amendments to many existing Statutes, including the Opticians Act, 1958, the Dentists Act, 1957, and the Medical Act, 1956.

Amendment agreed to.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill has been a long time in preparation. There was a full, and indeed protracted, discussion of the Report of the Cope Committee and of the points of view of the many interests involved. During that time all points of view were patiently listened to, and alternative solutions canvassed, with the object of reaching the highest common factor of equity, agreement, and administrative viability.
I feel that the event has shown that the time, although protracted, was well spent because the Bill received not only a unanimous Second Reading in the House but a general expression of welcome and assent on all sides. The Committee stage was useful but at the same time short and harmonious, and the Report stage today has been mainly an exercise in writing into the Bill the improvements suggested from diverse sources, again commanding the assent of all sides of the House. It is true that the Bill as we now have it provides for one fewer profession than we originally hoped, but it is not a final figure and it was never our intention to legislate for a fixed or inflexible membership. The procedure will be open-ended and new professions can come in by Orders under our improved Clase 10, which we have made subject to the affirmative Resolution.
I should perhaps indicate to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who said that he was glad that there would be no grudging spirit about the operation of Clause 10, that there is a statutory function prescribed for the Council and it is after the Council has discharged its function that the Privy Council comes into the picture and makes the Order of which Parliament is then seized by the affirmative Resolution.
The other changes which have been made are one and all by way of improvements. In particular, the test for admission to the initial register under Clause 3 is an interesting example of the way in which we can improve these Bills in the House of Commons. In the original Bill we had the test of qualification and experience; in Committee we added the test of training; and on Report today we have added the test of practical competence. This is

a further illustration of a point, on which I personally have had a good deal of evidence in longer and more complex Bills than this, of the way in which a Bill can be improved in its passage through the House and of the value which the Minister in charge of a Bill can get if he listens with an open mind and objective judgment to suggestions made from all parts of the House.
I am not allowed by the rules of order on Third Reading to refer to what is not in the Bill, but I am in order in describing the position which we have in regard to subpoenas now that the statutory powers which were in the Bill as originally presented to the House have been omitted by decision of the House. I emphasise to the House that it does not mean that there would be no power of subpoena at all in respect of these disciplinary committees. Such committees exercise a jurisdiction of a judicial nature and are generally recognised as constituting tribunals, or what are known as inferior tribunals. I should, of course, add that the epithet "inferior" casts no slight upon them; they are an inferior tribunal in relation to the Supreme Court.
So far as such tribunals are concerned, it was stated over fifty years ago that the court had at all times lent its aid to inferior tribunals where they themselves lack the means of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. It occurs, for example, in the second edition of Short and Mellor's Crown Office Practice, which was published in 1908. I think that I can best indicate to the House the position and principle as I understand it to be by reading a short extract from the judgment of Lord Justice Swinfen Eady in Rex v. Wiltshire Appeal Tribunal, 1916, reported at 86 Law Journals, King's Bench, page 121, which judgment was cited with approval in a later case by Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice, in Rex v. Hurle-Hobbs, 1945, I King's Bench, page 165:
Then, with regard to the attendance of witnesses before them, the tribunals being inferior courts and not in this respect in the position of one of the superior courts, have in themselves no power to enforce the attendance of witnesses. For that reason they have to invoke the assistance of the King's Bench Division to compel the attendance of witnesses in proper cases, and the master of the Crown Office, on being satisfied that they are proper cases, has power to issue a subpoena.


The procedure therefore in such cases is that a party can apply to the Crown Office for a subpoena and it is for the Master of the Crown Office to satisfy himself that it is a proper case. I need hardly remind the House that the Crown Office is a part of the Supreme Court of Judicature set up by Act of Parliament. This would seem a perfectly proper and appropriate procedure, and indeed it has been referred to several times of recent years by the Statutory Committee of the Pharmaceutical Society, even though the Pharmacy Act, 1954, does not confer any express powers to secure the issue of writs of subpoena.
Meanwhile, as the House knows, Lord Simonds' Committee is sitting and pursuing its beneficent activities, and it should be in a position to report relatively soon. If, as a result of the Report of Lord Simonds' Committee, amendments fall to be made to the Bill in another place, they will come back to the House in the ordinary way of procedure. If his Report calls for legislation in a wider and more general field than simply these supplementary professions with which we are concerned in the Bill, then that general legislation would govern the proceedings of these Committees, albeit under the terms of a general Act and not under the terms of this Bill.
But in any event, whatever the outcome the time factor is quite all right, because it is obviously bound to be some time before the Council and Boards are set up under the Bill, before the initial registers are prepared and before the disciplinary committees are functioning. Before that time arrives the matter can be dealt with in whichever way is appropriate.
It is not, of course, for me in any way to anticipate the report of Lord Simonds' Committee, but, if I may say so for myself, I can see the force of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in Committee that a recognition of professional status, such as it is the object of the Bill to achieve, involves the grant of appropriate procedures to those professions and that appropriate procedures require appropriate mechanisms to make them work.
That is the position in which we stand about subpoenas, and I hope that it is satisfactory to the House. We were very anxious not to delay the Bill further. I

am conscious that because of this aspect rather a longer time has already elapsed between the Standing Committee reporting the Bill and the House considering it on Report. We should certainly have been most reluctant by any further delay in any way to risk not placing the Bill upon the Statute Book in the current Session. I am sure the House will agree that the important point now is to put these professions on to an appropriate professional basis and to provide the procedures appropriate thereto. The Bill has that effect, and for that reason I commend it to the House.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I think that at this last stage of the Bill we might renew our congratulations to the Cope Committee, who initiated it, and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advisers who for many years have succeeded in reconciling the conflicts of many interests and in inducing a considerable number of somewhat meddlesome forces to pull in the same direction.
Now we have a significant step forward for seven professions, most of them small in numbers, but all of them performing most valuable functions within the National Health Service. The number of professions covered has now been reduced from eight to seven, but now we can say at any rate that all the professions covered by this Bill positively want the benefits and the status that it confers and willingly accept the obligations that it imposes.
We no longer have with us the speech therapists who were discussed on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments. I would only add that their decision to opt out of the Bill is theirs alone. It was, I know, reached after very considerable discussion, some of it I believe agonising discussion, and after hearing the views of both sides expressed with great strength. Certainly much persuasion to remain in was offered by this House and in Committee. However, I would agree with them to this extent, that although I agree with the Minister that they could properly be considered a profession supplementary to medicine, they are in a somewhat different category from the other seven professions covered by the Bill. I believe this fact tilted the scales in inducing them to opt out of the Bill. But now


that they have taken that decision, I think that they have no regrets. At any rate, if they do in years to come, they will have the consolation of knowing that the Bill does not slam any doors and that the door is open at all times for applications to be made under Clause 10 from any profession not now covered by the Bill.
The Minister told us the position about the question of powers of subpoena, and we are grateful to him for having made the situation clear. In Committee, many of us, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), were a little unhappy about the position as it was then left. We hoped that the Simonds Committee would have reported by now. I appreciate that the Minister has delayed the Report and Third Reading of this Bill in the hope of getting the Committee's Report, and I equally appreciate that it might have been dangerous, so far as the risk of losing the Bill was concerned, to delay any further.
I rather take the view of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that these disciplinary committees could not possibly function if they were denied any powers of subpoena. We remember all too vividly the Fox case that gave rise to misgivings that were expressed by right hon. and hon. Friends of mine. I have always felt that in that case it was not so much the existence of powers of subpoena that was the trouble. The trouble arose out of the failure of the Home Secretary to claim Crown privilege for evidence which had been obtained by the police in somewhat questionable circumstances in pursuit of inquiries in connection with a possible criminal charge which was subsequently dropped. I know that this must have been a difficult decision for the Home Secretary, to balance public interest on the one hand with the rights of the indiviual on the other, but for my part I think he took the wrong decision.
I was very glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's confirmation of what the hon. Member for Putney said in Committee, that if we leave the Bill in its present form these disciplinary committees will be able through Crown Office procedure to apply for subpoenas in appropriate cases. The right hon.

and learned Gentleman has not exactly given an assurance that whatever happens when the Simonds Committee reports, professions covered by this Bill will be treated exactly like the other professions under whose registration Act there are now express powers of subpoena. I would be glad if he would give that assurance that they will be treated on all fours with the others in whatever changes may be made. We are glad to support the Third Reading of the Bill and wish it well.

8.16 p.m.

Sir H. Linstead: I join in the thanks expressed to my right hon. and learned Friend for having at long last brought this Bill to fruition, at least in this House. There was a danger after seven years of negotiation that the Bill would be lost in the wilderness.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred to the professions as meddlesome forces. If I may change the simile, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to describe him as a latter-day Moses who has led these professions out of the wilderness to what we all hope will be the promised land. Anyhow, their future is largely now in their own hands and they are the mistress of their fate.
I should like also to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the clear statement which he has made about the position of the disciplinary committees and subpoenas. I owe an apology to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for having introduced this without warning to her in Committee and for having taken the wind out of her sails, but the position as my right hon. and learned Friend has left it tonight is perfectly clear.
We were worried in Committee lest, having created this disciplinary machinery, we should deny it the opportunity of functioning adequately by its inability to bring essential witnesses before it. What my right hon. and learned Friend has now said makes it clear that they will not have that inhibition and they should be able to function satisfactorily. I am grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CENSUS

8.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move,
That articles 6 (a) (i) to (iii) and 10 (c) of Part I, articles 2, 3 and 4 of Part II and article 3 of Part III of the Second Schedule to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order, 1960, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Motion the following Motion, in the names of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)—
That the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order, 1960, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be not submitted to Her Majesty.
—and to divide, if necessary on both separately.

Miss Pitt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The Census Act, 1920, provides that a census of population can be authorised by Order in Council, a draft of which must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The draft of this Order is subject to negative Resolution and I expect to find that this is the reason for the Motion in the names of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and his hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), as otherwise there would be no opportunity to debate the Order in full.
In addition, any particulars required in the census return not contained in paragraphs 1 to 5 in the Schedule to the 1920 Act require the affirmative Resolution of both Houses. There are five such additional items which require affirmative Resolution and I shall return to the details of those five later. Meantime, as you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it will be convenient if we take both Motions together.
The Order prescribes the date on which the census is to be taken, the persons by whom and with respect to whom the returns for the purposes of the census are to be made, and the particulars to be stated in the returns. The Order applies to Great Britain and my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland joins with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health in submitting it to this House.
The census date proposed is Sunday, 23rd April, 1961. This is chosen to secure that as far as possible the largest number of people will be at their homes. The census point is midnight on Sunday, 23rd April. The forms of the return will be distributed beforehand, and collected on the following Monday.
Census information is treated at all stages as strictly confidential, and this is very important. The information given will be used for statistical purposes, and no personal details about individuals or individual families will be disclosed in the census publications. Each separate household will receive its own return, and the head of the household has to complete it and return it to the census enumerator. There will be forms of return for hotels, hospitals and other institutions. The person making the return may not use the information for any purpose other than the making of the return. Any person employed in the census who misuses information given in the return is liable to a penalty under Section 8 (2) of the Census Act.
Provision is, however, made for people who do not wish information about themselves to come into the hands of the person making the census return. Such people may make separate confidential returns on separate schedules, which they can obtain direct from the enumerator and return direct to him. The enumerators themselves are given strict instructions about the confidentiality of all census information. So far as possible, they are not allocated to districts in which they are known personally to many of the residents. In the words of the Census Act, 1920, the purpose of the census is to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population; that is to say, the figures of population, national and local, and statistical information about certain characteristics, such as numbers by sex and age, occupation, area of residence, housing conditions, place of work and others.
The Government need to have such information, for example, for the purpose of future estimates of development


in the fields of education, housing and public services, and it is essential to have such information kept up to date by a periodic census. While current statistics are collected by many Departments, these in themselves will not remove the need for a census.
I should perhaps explain to the House that there has been very full consultation among Government Departments concerned about the list of questions to be asked in the census, and the Government are satisfied that the information which the census will produce is essential and cannot be obtained otherwise than by a census. The census counts everyone at one point in time, and with its comprehensive coverage gives basic population data for the whole population at one point in time.
The census is a national operation which depends for its success on public goodwill and co-operation. We seek the willing help of the public, and we are confident that this will be freely forthcoming as on previous censuses. The questions relate to simple matters of fact which are within the knowledge of the people concerned. While the census is compulsory, we shall use every means we can to inspire the voluntary spirit. The Press and broadcasting services have helped us greatly in the past, and I am sure they will do so again. We mean to use other modern means of publicity so far as seems appropriate to the purpose.
There is, however, a difference in the 1961 census in that the extended use of sampling methods is proposed, and some of the particulars will be obtained for approximately 10 per cent. of the population. These are the particulars listed in Part II of the Second Schedule of the Order. Sampling methods are being introduced in this way because for some inquiries, notably the inquiries into the occupational situation of the working population, the analysis of numbers can be sufficient on a sampling basis. The aim has been to speed up analysis of the results. There have been complaints in the past, I understand, about the long time taken for the information collected at the census date to be made available in the form of analysed returns. One immediate effect of the sampling procedure will be

to reduce the number of questions for most of the people. The sampling will be done by having two different returns or schedules for private householders. One will be given to nine householders out of ten and another will be given to every tenth householder.
The second schedule will contain the additional questions and will therefore be considerably larger. Instructions will be given to enumerators under the proviso to paragraph 4 (1) to ensure the random distribution of the sampling questions. In the case of institutions the persons in charge will be asked to answer questions concerning themselves on the shorter schedule in the case of nine individuals out of ten, and extra questions in the case of the tenth individual. The effect of this will be that the great majority of the population will have a smaller number of questions to answer in the 1961 census than in any recent census this century.
I should perhaps explain that on the publication of the results, as on previous occasions, it is proposed to publish a preliminary report with provisional figures by numbers, sex and areas, which should be available within two months or so of the census date. The final results will be published at intervals, and we hope that the complete analysis will be finished within a matter of three years or so. Use is to be made of recent developments in electronic equipment in the processing of the results, and the effect of using such equipment and of the sampling methods should reduce the amount of preliminary clerical work and speed the production of the results.
Close consultation with Government Departments has helped to produce the census programme for 1961. Many suggestions were received both from Departments and many other quarters with an interest in census statistics, but the programme now put forward represents a balance which can reasonably be asked for. Most of the questions which are to be asked have appeared in previous censuses, though some are modified, some have been extended and there are some new ones.
I said that I would return to the questions covered by the affirmative procedure, which are as follows: the first is on marriage and children, which will figure on all returns, and that is covered


by article 6 (a), paragraphs i to iii, of Part I of the Second Schedule. Part only of this inquiry requires the affirmative Resolution procedure, the rest being covered by the Census Act, 1920, item 5 of the Schedule, but it is perhaps best to consider the whole of article 6 together. The questions on marriage have varied from census to census. Those on the duration of marriage and the number of children were first asked in 1911 and were repeated in 1951, with further questions as to whether a person had been married more than once and whether there had been a child during the previous twelve months. Similar questions are proposed this time.
It is again proposed to ask for the particulars of all women, this time without restriction of age, that is to say, of all women who are married at the time of the census, and it is proposed to extend the question to women who have been married. There is also a question asking for the date of the end of the marriage for women whose marriage, or, if married more than once, whose first marriage, has been terminated by widowhood or divorce. This extra information is needed so that it may be possible to include in the analysis the number of children of all marriages which have run the full length of child-bearing life.
The statistics derived from these questions will comprise the numbers of children born to women at different ages and at different durations of marriage. This information will provide a fuller picture of probable population trends than can be gained from the current birth and registration data alone. The questions relate to simple dates and facts. There was no difficulty in obtaining this information in 1911 or 1951, and we think that there should be no difficulty in 1961 with what is now proposed.
I come next to question 10 (c) in Part I of the Second Schedule. The questions on housing have been expanded as compared with 1951. This is because of the great use of the census data to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The new questions, of which only those relating to housing tenure require the affirmative procedure, relate to the type of building and extend the inquiry about household arrangements to cover the hot water supply. Housing tenure is covered by question

10 (c) of Part I. This question asks whether the accommodation occupied by a household is held by them as owner-occupiers, is occupied in connection with any employment or as part of business premises, is rented from a council or a private landlord or is occupied on some other terms.
The information will be useful as basic information for various aspects of housing and town planning policy. At present, information of this kind has to be pieced together from a variety of sources such as council records and special surveys which do not have complete coverage. The value of this new census question is that it will provide information which is reliable and comprehensive, and it will be compiled on a uniform basis for all types of tenure. It will provide information not merely about numbers of dwellings held in the various ways but numbers of families living in them. In addition, by relating the information to other information collected at the census, it will be possible more than ever before to consider the size of households and other characteristics of the people who occupy various types of dwelling. The census provides a ready means of obtaining this information and the questions are put in simple terms.
Turning to education, this forms part of the selective returns, and it is provided for in Article 2 of Part II of the Second Schedule. The question asks the age at which full-time education ceased. This will provide information about the general level of education in the community and can be combined with the occupation question to give comparative figures for educational level and current occupation in respect of people leaving school at different ages. The question is similar to that asked in 1951 and is included at the request of the Ministry of Education. In 1951, the question was confined to persons in gainful occupation as the main purpose was to obtain information about the level of education of persons in employment and to relate it to the job followed. The extension to the population generally is new.
Article 3 of Part II of the Second Schedule, Question 3, is new and asks for scientific and technological qualifications. The census provides a convenient means of obtaining information which can be related to the other information


on the census return, for example, about current employment. The question is included at the request of the office of the Minister for Science supported by the Ministries of Labour and Education which need more information about the sex, age distribution and occupation of highly-qualified scientific and technological personnel.
Article 4 of Part II is a new question, again for the selective returns. The object is to obtain information as to (a) the frequency, amount, direction and characteristics of population movements within this country, and (b) the degree of permanence of usual residence. At present, very little has been known statistically about movement from area to area within the country or about the duration of people's periods of residence at the addresses they describe as their usual residence. The answers to this new question will make it possible for the first time to assess the degree of stability of local populations over a longer period, to measure the amount of movement of the population with some accuracy, and to provide information on which present estimates of population can be improved, on the basis of which planning authorities will be able to forecast the need for housing and essential services, water supply, drainage and education. This is of importance to local authorities and is included at the request of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
There is another innovation which I might mention, although it does not require the affirmative procedure. Previous censuses have produced information about the numbers and conditions of people in various parts of the country at a fixed point in time—the census night. This basis of enumeration is retained for the 1961 census, but, in addition, inquiries are proposed, again on a sample basis only, concerning the usual make-up of private households. Thus, people are asked to give particulars, not only of the persons present in the house on census night, but also some particulars of members of the household who happen to be away from home. From the experience of past censuses, it can be expected that in 1961 there will be over 1 million persons absent from their homes on census night. Because of these absentees it has not been possible in previous censuses to present figures of the normal

size of private households. The answers to the questions will be used solely to present an analysis of households as usually constituted.
I have explained the purpose of this Order in some detail because I hoped that in so doing I might anticipate points which would be in the minds of hon. Members. I welcome the opportunity that this debate has given because of the need for publicity in order that the census and the particulars required in the census return shall be fully understood throughout the country. There has already been publicity. We were grateful for the publicity received on the last occasion. We intend that there shall be further publicity before we come to census date next year through all the mediums now available to us, such as the Press and radio, which were particularly helpful on the last occasion. Now we shall have the added help of the wide use of television. In this way we hope that we shall do what is essential, namely, secure the co-operation of the public.
I am glad that we have had the debate which will make its contribution to the necessary publicity. Because of the cooperation we hope to enjoy, questions have been kept to the minimum which it is reasonable to ask. The wording of the schedules issued to householders will be as simple and clear as we can possibly make it. I hope that the House will now accept the Motion.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the great trouble she has taken in explaining in great detail the content and purport of this Motion. She is perfectly right in saying that we have tabled a Motion, as was done on 11th July, 1950, to enable the whole subject to be discussed. I do not know whether the hon. Lady read the debate of 11th July, 1950, but if she did she will have noticed that her predecessor in office, who was then a Labour Minister, was subjected to a very considerable barrage of attack—particularly a barrage of baronets. In reading the debate, I noticed that the hon. Members for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) and South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) spoke. One of the hon. Lady's colleagues, the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the


Ministry of Transport, joined in in very strong terms.
All these hon. Members said that the census was much too expensive, that it should be postponed, and that the questions asked of married women were appalling. The present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that the questions were downright impertinent. If they were impertinent then, they are even more impertinent now. They are closer now than they were then. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) went so far as to suggest that they interfered with the laws of marriage. I hope that the hon. Lady has made her peace with her various colleagues who then took such a strong line on this matter.
We strongly support the census. We do not take the line which was taken in 1950 by a number of Conservatives. As the hon. Lady said, it is vitally important that we should know much more than we do about the essential figures of our country and of our fellow citizens, particularly figures of migration within the country. This is something about which we really know practically nothing other than what one can infer from figures collected for quite different purposes—questions of fertility, distribution of population, and so on. I believe it is true to say that in a great deal of very important policy we are acting in the dark and making guesses, such as in town planning, school planning and other forms of planning. Where we ought to have information we have to make guesses, and for that reason policies are often not as effective as they could otherwise be.
The hon. Lady said that we must keep up to date. She is right. I am not sure that there is not a very strong case for a quinquennial census. We are a very crowded and complex country, with people moving about a great deal. No doubt in the United States a decennial census is enough, but I am not sure that for our purposes, for the purposes of planning and for Government administration in this extremely complex country, we should not have more frequent and more up-to-date figures, at any rate on a sample basis. Now that this innovation of a sample has been suggested, I am not sure that it would not be a good thing to have perhaps a

10 per cent. sample between the decennial censuses.
I have a number of questions to put to the hon. Lady. It would be interesting to know what it is thought the cost of the census will be, not that we shall say that it is too expensive, because it is important to pay for these things, but it would just be interesting to know.
The hon. Lady said, and it is the principle of our census, that we take the whole population at a particular point of time. I have often wondered, and I have been wondering after reading the First Schedule, how one allows for the inevitable overlap between certain categories of people who are counted twice. The first and main class is the people returned by householders, which includes people who are usually resident in such dwellings or lodgings but are temporarily absent. All those who are temporarily absent are counted somewhere else—in hospital, in a hotel, in prison or elswhere. It cannot be a considerable figure, but the hon. Lady said that there would be 1 million people who are away from home, and unless there is a proper arrangement to avoid overlap—

Miss Pitt: There will be a separate item in the Schedule for people who are temporarily absent.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It seems to me that the people referred to in 1 (b), of the First Schedule, at the bottom of page 2, are not counted.

Miss Pitt: They will be counted and deducted.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Then they are added and substracted simultaneously. It may be not so necessary to have that figure.
The 10 per cent. sample, which is a good idea, has been tried in other countries, and it is a sensible way of getting answers without bothering so many people with more detailed questions. But I am not sure how the sample is to be selected. If it is just the very crude system of taking every tenth household, it may not be a very scientific sample. The sampling technique depends on a very careful selection and balancing of the sample. If it is the crude system of taking every one in ten households and multiplying by ten, it may be difficult to obtain adequate general and


national figures, for I understand, though I am no pollster, that this system may conceal within itself quite considerable errors. No doubt we shall be told about that, if not now, when the later regulations are made.
It will be three years before we get the full results. That seems a long time. After all, it is not only that we need the figures in order to govern and administer; we need them fairly quickly so that they do not have time to become out of date again. In view of the magnificent electronic machines available now which can do years of work in seconds, is it not possible to have the process speeded up a little more? Are the Government sure that they are really using to the full the machines which are available in order to speed up this process enormously, because every six months of delay in the publication of the figures makes them less use for the very purposes for which the hon. Lady said that we need them?
Although some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite may have different views about certain questions, I myself think that the questions, including the new ones and including the ones which were described by the members of the Conservative Party last time as downright impertinent, are perfectly all right and necessary, and that they were very carefully considered before it was decided to include them. Nonetheless, some of them will cause resentment unless we are careful, some particularly for women, and some of those addressed to men about employment and employers and so on. These questions can cause resentment unless there is very careful explanation and preparation.
I was glad to hear what the hon. Lady said about the publicity that ought to be given to this matter. This is extremely important. This is one of the many acts of Government which cannot be done without the participation of the people. It is one of those voluntary acts which can only be guided by the Government. The participation of the people is extremely important, and it will be necessary to use every sort of resource to explain to people two things in particular—the reasons for the questions and that the questions are reasonable to ask.
British people will put up with anything as long as it is reasonable and sensible, but otherwise they will not, and it is therefore extremely important to explain these matters and particularly this difficult question about women and employees. It is important to explain that the Government need the information and also to explain its confidentiality—that it is as secret as the Ballot itself. This must be continuously put across.
We shall have another go at this subject, because apparently regulations in detail will be put before us dealing with the exact way in which the census is to be carried out. We shall want to scrutinise those regulations very carefully. We have not put the Motion on the Order Paper in order to divide the House but to enable a proper debate to take place without inhibition. I thank the hon. Lady for the courtesy with which she told us about these things in great detail, and I hope that one or two of the questions which I asked will be answered in due course.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I rise only to ask the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary two questions with which I am sure she will deal when she replies to the debate. They both relate to the sample census. Will adequate steps to taken to explain to the public that a sample census is being taken? Some people are reluctant to talk about a census at all and particularly to tell their neighbours what information has been given. There are others who will almost certainly talk to their neighbours, and if one person is asked more questions than another it will arouse a considerable amount of puzzlement in their minds. It is important, therefore, that adequate explanation should be given of the reasons for taking a sample census.
The second point is the care taken in the making of the sample. I agree that it would be unwise to make too haphazard a sampling. I shall be interested to know how it will be done. It is extremely difficult to pick out one in ten with any degree of care, but I should have thought that if the one in ten were chosen entirely haphazardly it would not be adequate for the purpose. I would add that, of course, everyone appreciates


how important it is to emphasise the confidential nature of the information that is to be obtained.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about points which I have already raised in correspondence with the Home Office on the inclusion of questions about religion among the census items. In 1851 a voluntary inquiry on the subject was conducted in association with the census. In many other countries people are asked to state their religion and there is no difficulty in collecting the information.
It is more important now than ever that we should have accurate information on this subject because, as a matter of practical policy, requests are made to the Government for assistance for religious education and important grants are made from public funds for this purpose. In order to test whether it is desirable or reasonable to give grants in aid of religious education sponsored by a particular Church, it is important to know the strength of that Church. At present, the only figures we have are those provided by the Churches themselves and different Churches compile them on very different bases.
The Roman Catholic Church counts as its members all those who have been baptised, irrespective of whether they have left the Church at a later date or not. The Church of England, I understand, counts all those who have taken communion on Easter Day as members. Other denominations have different methods of computing their members. I think it desirable that there should be an attempt by the State officially to find out what is the strength of these various religious bodies.
I suggest that from the census returns we could pick out the number of children of school age to find out the number of children in an area desirous of attending particular Church schools. This would enable us to check up on the returns made by the different churches. It is desirable to have this information if we are to adopt a fair and sensible policy with regard to assistance grants to particular Churches for their schools.
A great many people have no religion. How are they to be shown on the census form? I think that it would be quite

simple for people who are humanists or agnostics, or whatever else they may be, to put on the forms what they themselves think they are and that for census purposes they could be amalgamated together. In that way I do not think there will be any difficulty if there are many people who do not want to declare themselves as being of any particular religion.
It is desirable that we should collect information about how much Gaelic is spoken in Scotland and how much Welsh is spoken in Wales and Monmouthshire. At the same time, there are a number of Welsh-speaking villages inside the English border—in Shropshire, for example. It is desirable to have information about Oswestry and similar areas in Shropshire so that we may know how much Welsh is spoken there. Those are points that I want to make, and I should like to press for strongly.

8.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The Government would like to thank the Opposition for the way in which they have welcomed this Order. I should like to deal with the various points that have been raised and also to say a word about the way in which the Order affects Scotland.
The right bon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) dealt first with the need for a quinquennial census. As he knows, there has been a regular ten-yearly census since 1801 except for one year, 1941, which was missed, but we shall consider very carefully what he said. The Act is expressed so as to prevent anything less than a five-yearly census. As to the cost, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked, it is estimated at £3 million.
The sampling is worked out on a very careful statistical basis, and very careful instructions are given to the enumerators. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be a further opportunity to discuss the matter when we reach the regulations.
He also asked about the length of time taken to produce the full returns. He will appreciate the very great detail which is 'involved and the great detail in the publication as well. My hon. Friend mentioned that the main population data


will not be long delayed after the census has been taken. It will come out in a matter of two months. Electronic devices are now available which help in that process and in the sorting process.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the time of three years for the final analysis compares with the time of the final analysis of the 1951 census?

Mr. Macpherson: I believe that that final analysis took about eight years, so that a time of three years represents a considerable improvement.
The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the co-operation and participation of the public in this matter. There will be a gradual build-up towards the date and during the week before the actual census point, the enumerators will be going round and will be making quite clear exactly what should be returned in the census and satisfying any questions which may be asked.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) asked about the census of religion. The basis for co-operation and the way in which the two Registrars-General have been looking at this matter and sifting out the sort of questions which should be asked has been to consider what questions are likely to be answered truthfully and what use will be made of the results when obtained. With the exception of 1851, which was an exceptional case and not exactly an official census, in this country no questions have ever been asked about religion except, curiously enough, in the earliest Scottish example dating back to 1755, when the first census in Scotland was taken by Dr. Alexander Webster, Moderator of the Church of Scotland, and a man of great vigour and enterprise. The manuscript account of his census is in the National Library of Scotland and it distinguished between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but no further than that.
Nevertheless, there is considerable resistance towards giving this kind of information and we are advised that the questions would probably be widely resented and in consequence we would not be likely to get the sort of truthful

answers which we seek to obtain in the census.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Welsh-speaking people in England and Wales. It has been thought that it is sufficient for the purpose of the census to count Welsh-speaking people in Wales. That may be necessary because there may be some people in Wales who speak nothing but Welsh. The census therefore has also to be printed in Welsh. I may say that it is not to be printed in Gaelic. At the time of the last census, there were some 2,200 persons who spoke Gaelic only. I am afraid that it is probably true to say that the number has been reduced.

Mr. K. Robinson: Why "afraid"?

Mr. Macpherson: Because many people attach much importance to the preservation of the Gaelic tongue.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) referred to the random 10 per cent. sample, and I think that I have answered what he said. He stressed the steps which should be taken to explain the difference with the sample census. That, of course, will be done by the enumerators as they go round. No doubt neighbours will be apt to compare the fact that some have received a census divided into five sections and others a census divided into only three sections, or something of that sort. The enumerators will help to explain that.
Part III contains provisions relating only to Scotland. Article 3 requires affirmative Resolution, which I will briefly explain. This article is a consequential extension to Scotland of Article 10 (c, 3) of Part I. Article 10 (c) is designed to provide a simple means of getting information about the arrangements under which people occupy the houses in which they reside.
Article 10 (3, c) relates to dwellings rented from local authorities or new towns corporations. This is felt to be sufficient in England and Wales, but in Scotland we have the three additional agencies named in Article 3 of Part III, which, with direct Exchequer assistance, have also built houses to rent. As they are, for the practical purposes of the census, similar to local authorities and to new town corporations, they should be bracketed with the latter bodies for the purpose of the information to be


obtained as the result of Article 10 (c, 3). Article 3 of Part III has been included in order to achieve this object.
There are two other differences in the application of the draft order to Scotland, both of them in Part III of the Second Schedule. They do not require affirmative Resolutions, but I will say something about them. Article I of Part III deals with the speaking of Gaelic. As I have said, in 1951, the census showed that nearly 2,200 persons spoke Gaelic only, and more than 93,000 spoke both Gaelic and English. We do not know what this census will bring forward, and I shall certainly not prophecy.
Article 2 of Part III proposes to retain the traditional question about the county of birth in cases of persons born in Scotland. We are retaining it for Scotland because we have been asked to do so by several university departments interested in long-term population movements within Scotland.
It cannot be emphasised too often that, as in the past, the census schedules that the householders complete are strictly confidential, that the information in them is used solely for compiling statistics, and that no details of individuals are disclosed to any persons or departments outside the census staff.
As I have said, the tradition of censuses in Scotland go back a very long time. We cannot claim that the first census was taken in Scotland—I believe that it was in Iceland—but I have no doubt that this tradition before us in Scotland will follow the same path next year and that there will be a first class response to the census of population in 1961. I am certain that also will apply to the whole of Great Britain.

Mr. Parker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that women are more likely to be sensitive about giving details about their marital history than about the religion they profess?

Mr. Macpherson: The questions they are asked are not questions that they will not have disclosed already, because they are bound to disclose them on the occasion of their previous marriages. I do not think that the women would be particularly worried about these particular questions. They can obtain a special form from the enumerator and fill that

up and hand it directly to the enumerator.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That articles 6 (a) (i) to (iii) and 10 (c) of Part I, articles 2, 3 and 4 of Part II and article 3 of Part III of the Second Schedule to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order, 1960, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move,
That the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order, 1960, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be not submitted to Her Majesty.
I understand that I have to move this Motion to keep in order. In the circumstances, I now beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE [MONEY]

Resolution reported.
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to establish a Public Health Laboratory Service Board for the exercise of functions with respect to the administration of the bacteriological service provided by the Minister of Health under section seventeen of the National Health Service Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenditure of the Board incurred with the approval of the Minister and of compensation to persons employed as officers or servants of the Medical Research Council who suffer loss of employment or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the passing of the said Act of this Session; and
 (b)the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Board.

Resolution agreed to.

CHARITIES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to replace with new provisions the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1939, and other enactments relating to charities, to make further provision as to the powers exercisable by or with respect to charities, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

 (a) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of remuneration and allowances to the Charity Commissioners and their officers and servants; 


(b)any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Education or the Charity Commissioners; 
 (c)any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment. 
(2) if the Act provides for an officer of the Charity Commissioners to have the function of acting as trustee for charities, the charging on the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for making good to a charity sums for which he may become liable as trustee for the charity; 
(3) the payment into the Exchequer of any fees received by the Minister of Education or the Charity Commissioners under or by virtue of any provision of the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Peel discharged from the Select Committee; Lieut.-Commander Maydon added.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

BROMLEY COLLEGE AND OTHER CHARITIES BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

CHIPPING SODBURY TOWN TRUST BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

UNITED CHARITIES OF NATHANIEL WATERHOUSE AND OTHER CHARITIES (HALIFAX) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

9.11 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I want to make a brief remark on the Third Reading of the Bill, because it is a small milestone in Parliamentary history. There may be a sigh of relief in the House when I say that this is the last Bill in which Parliament will be invited

to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commission. That is because under the Charity Bill now before the House this method of procedure will cease, and in future confirmation of schemes needing confirmation will be by affirmative Resolution of the House.
One other little curiosity of Parliamentary history which will also disappear is the fact that these Charity Bills are the only Bills which are introduced by a back bench Member and which are straight away adopted by the Government and given the star which facilitates their progress through the House, as we have seen this evening. Incidentally, it enables the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner for the time being to collect to his credit more Bills that find their way on to the Statute Book than any other back bench Member in the House.
The only sad thing, so far as I am personally concerned, is that this is the last Bill that I shall have the pleasure, or the pain, of inflicting on the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BRITANNIC SC5 AIRCRAFT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Brooman-White.]

9.13 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: A week ago tonight I sat through the whole of the debate on Blue Streak. To my chagrin I was not called but previous to the Easter Recess I had submitted my name to Mr. Speaker in the hope that I might get an Adjournment debate on the Britannic SC5. I am glad that I put "SC5", because the similarity between Britannic and a name that I am going to use often in this debate, the Britannia, might have confused my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) into thinking I was not talking about aircraft but about a ship, and that would have been most unfortunate.
I do not propose to talk about ships but about aircraft qua aircraft. I am interested in the defence of this country, particularly at this time. The subject of


the Britannic has a relation to the debate on Blue Streak, but I am not going to inflict on the House the speech that I should have liked to have made on Blue Streak. That is a pleasure for which the House must wait, but it will come in due time.
There are one or two things arising from that debate that need to be said because I do not think either the House or the country have realised the full significance of the Blue Streak decision.
As we have plenty of time, let us go back to 1957. I do not complain about the loss of money on Blue Streak. I never complained about the concept which the Prime Minister asked the present Minister of Aviation to put into effect. It was a perfectly honourable and straightforward conception of getting rid of National Service—no more V-bombers, no jet fighters, a force which was to be an atomic, streamlined force with a high degree of mobility.
The central piece in the story was Blue Streak, which was to deliver the missile, and the logistic aircraft, the Britannic, which was to provide the mobility. If hon. Members doubt that, let them think back for a moment to two operations. The first was Suez. Suez, whatever the moral of it may be, failed because it could not be carried out at an August week-end, because there was not a brigade to ship and, even if there had been, there was not the mobility to transport it.
The next operation was Jordan. It is a great pity, and a cause for shame to both Front Benches, that the military implications of Suez and Jordan have never been discussed in the House. Our military thinking is the worse for that, and the great mass of our population are inclined to go awry on defence matters because the full significance of those operations is not understood.
I assert positively—and these statements are to be read in the dispatches of General Keightley which were published in September 1957—that we were short of aircraft. Look at Jordan. It is popularly assumed that we went into Jordan with ease, that we stayed there at will and that we were masters of the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We went into Jordan armed as we went into Suez—with an American

anti-tank weapon. The Americans complained biterly that at Suez we used the 106 m.m. without their permission. Of course they did not complain about it in Jordan, but the fact is that from 22nd July onwards, our very small force in Jordan was sustained by the Lockhead C.130. If hon. Members doubt that, they should look at HANSARD of 15th July last year when I put Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Air to establish that no less than 1,500 tons of stores—a vast amount of stores for so small a force—were conveyed by American aircraft and that the Jordan operation could not have been carried out without this logistic assistance.
It is a matter of some interest that a pamphlet called "The Missile Years" was produced by a group called the Bow Group and written by a gentleman named Mr. Timothy Raison. I notice that he is an Etonian. This is a companion volume to that written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). Hon. Members in all parts of the House who are connoisseurs in defence matters should acquire a copy of this pamphlet and of my right hon. Friend's pamphlet on the bomb before they go to be pulped. They axe worth the expenditure of a few coppers. If I ever lost my seat in the House I should try to earn my living by selling copies of both pamphlets at half price.
What do we read in the pamphlet by Mr. Timothy Raison on behalf of the Conservative Party? He refers to the strategic reserve and adds,
with the aid of charter aircraft which the Government are able to use and which provided the whole of the airlift for the Jordan operation in 1958".
Mr. Timothy Raison, like my right hon. Friend, is an Etonian. Who am I to challenge his intelligence? I can only assume that he knew the facts and that for party political reasons he preferred the public to be deluded into thinking that this country has mobility in its capacity to lift a force. It is obvious to any hon. Member, even if he is not interested in this subject, that if we are to cut down the size of our force at a time when its commitments tend to increase, then mobility is x in the equation, and if it cannot be solved, then the military inevitability of what happened at Suez or what might have happened in Jordan awaits us.
I turn to the Britannic and to the Minister of Aviation, formerly Minister of Defence, who I am sure is ably represented tonight by his Parliamentary Secretary. When he was Minister of Defence he informed the House on 11th February last year of a most important decision—as important as that about Blue Streak and as the decision to abandon it. He announced that the Government had decided to place an order with Short Bros. and Harland of Belfast for the Britannic, and it is worth while having a look at the words which he used.
He was answering a number of Questions which had been put down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, some of whom represent Belfast constituencies, and with whom I have great sympathy. I have even more sympathy with their poor constituents—[Laughter.]—indeed, I have. I am discussing the defence aspect of this matter, but at the same time I am mindful of the thousands of people in Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole who depend for their livelihood on the prosperity of Short Bros, and Harland, and anything that I can do to further their prosperity and see that they are provided with work, the better. I must say in parenthesis that the gods help those who help themselves and the first thing that the workers in Northern Ireland should do should be to get rid of their representation and get a representation based on facts.
Let me return to that very controversial figure, the late Minister of Defence. He said:
In order to carry especially heavy and bulky loads, it has been decided to buy a number of long-range freighter aircraft for Royal Air Force Transport Command. The type selected is the Britannic 3, a freighter version of the Britannia to be built by Short and Harlands of Belfast."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1163–4.]
This was a decision that staggered me, but the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave staggered me even more.
I am not an expert in this subject. I have only such knowledge as I have been able to acquire by the limited means at my disposal. But I knew enough about the subject to know that the Britannia was a low-wing aircraft. Therefore, to suggest that the Britannic—to give it its new name—was a derivative of the Bri-

tannia seemed to me most odd. What I did was to do what I always do. I tried to acquire such information as was open to me, and the first thing I got was a copy of a brochure relating to the Britannia and drawings of the Britannic. I want to give the House the advantages of my researches and we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation whether he agrees or disagrees. If any hon. Members would like to further their own studies, I would be glad to lend them the drawings of the Britannic and the brochure of the Britannia.
It is said that one is a derivative of the other. What do I find when comparing the Britannia with the Britannic? In the Britannia the wing location is low; in the Britannic it is a high wing. The fuselage length in the Britannia is 124 ft. and in the Britannic it is 136 ft. The fuselage diameter of the Britannia is 12 ft. and of the Britannic 17 ft. The cabin volume in the Britannia is 5,877 cu. ft. and in the Britannic 10,000 cu. ft. The tail height of the Britannia is 36 ft. and of the Britannic 48 ft. The gross weight of the Britannia is 175,000 lb. and of the Britannic 218,000 lb. The payload of the Britannia is 28,000 lb. and of the Britannic 85,000 lb. The landing gear of the Britannia is wing-mounted and of the Britannic fuselage-mounted. The gear tread in the Britannia is 31 ft. and in the Britannic 19 ft. The engines in the Britannia are Bristol Proteus and in the Britannic Rolls-Royce Tyne.
In fact, the only basic similarity between these two aircraft—and this was enough to convince the right hon. Gentleman—was the name. That was enough. This is not unimportant because if one was, in fact, a derivative of the other, then one could look forward to a spread-over of the development costs and, above all, one could look for a stepping up in time.
If we had failed in Jordan and at Suez because of logistic and air lift deficiencies, and we had only gone into Jordan on sufferance because the lift was provided by the United States Air Force, were we then to remain for years without any air lift at a time when Blue Streak was nothing more than a gamble and the right hon. Gentleman—and this is part of my case—knew a year ago that Blue Streak had failed, and that, therefore, the


mobility of our conventional forces was absolutely vital. The time scale is indeed most important.
Again, with non-expert knowledge, but relying on such researches as I could undertake, I turned to an article that appeared in The Times of 12th February, the day after the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question in the House, and in the Manchester Guardian for the same date—12th February—in the magazine Flight of the 20th February, in The Aeroplane of the 20th February, and in an article entitled "The Short Britannic", which appeared in Shell Aviation News, for which I have not got the date. The dates that were put out at the time— that is, fifteen months ago—were that the prototype would fly by April, 1961, and that production would start in 1962.
Here we come to the second of the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. After being questioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including a direction question by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and after giving the reason why the order was placed to my hon. Friend who also interjected on the same question, the Minister said that the reasons were that—
 it is a complicated requirement, which had to be considered very carefully not only inside the Government Departments concerned but also with the industry. The second is that we thought it right to try to choose an aeroplane which would not only meet military requirements but also might have a civilian market."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1165.]
This is a perfectly right and honourable reason, if it was practical, but I want again to inflict on the House the results of the inquiries which I have made and, if any hon. Gentleman wishes, I am quite willing to show him the papers, for what they are worth.
I have gone into the production of what I think is the most successful aeroplane that is now flying—the Lockheed C130—and hon. Gentlemen can judge for themselves whether what I say is correct or not when I tell them that 300 of these machines have been produced and are being operated. This company got to work on it in 1951 and were in production in a period of four years. I want to point out that it cost Lockheeds £200 million in development costs and 22 million man-hours of engineering and

tooling effort, and they did the job in four years. Here is the Minister saying that we expect to get the prototype in 1961and be in production in 1962, but the prototype of this aircraft, the Britannic, is not yet flying, and it took Lockheeds 200 million dollars in development costs and 22 million man-hours.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said "pounds".

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged, but I always get confused about millions of dollars, and I trust that I may be forgiven for nothing more than a slip of the tongue. I must not, however, get away from my argument. Lockheeds, with all their resources, did the job in four years, so that I suggest that we want to hear from the hon. Gentleman when he expects the prototype to fly and when it will come into production. My guess is that the most he can expect is that the prototype will fly in 1962 and that the aircraft will come into production in 1966.
Against that background, let us examine the possibility of it having a civilian market. Lockheed spread the development costs over 300 aircraft ordered up to the present time, and the demand is continuing. Probably, at the end of the day, the total will be spread over 500 or 600 aircraft. I have the price here of the Lockheed aircraft. It it 2·1 million dollars. The hon. Gentleman, presumably, after contact with the Minister of Aviation, without a blush tells us that the Government intend to order ten Britannics. That is the sum total of the order over which the development costs can be spread.
Now, let us consider what competition the Britannic will meet, not in 1961 or 1962but when it comes into production in 1966 or, if I am a little wrong, in 1965. By that time, the Lockheed company will have won through with the C130 and will be producing the G207. But, of course, far more important—the House and the Armed Forces must face this—is that the Britannic is a turboprop aircraft. It is not a jet. By 1966, this obsolescent aircraft will be obsolete by current standards, and it will have to meet competition from the Douglas DC 8 and Boeing 735, both of which


are swing-tail jets having a far greater range and a far greater lifting capacity. Moreover—again, I repeat only what has been said to me in response to my inquiries—the Boeing 735 has already acquired orders for 400 aircraft. So it is at least two generations on, and the cost of development can be spread over 400 aircraft.
The Government, after months and months of vacillation, messing and mucking about, have still not placed the first order, yet they come to the House of Commons and with brazen-faced audacity suggest that they will order ten. One hon. Member today suggested that he would like to impeach one of his right hon. Friends. Very kindly, I did not press him about whom he meant. If I had a candidate, I should not mention his name now but hon. Members could guess who he was. Having played ducks and drakes and gambled with the defences of this country in terms of Blue Streak, he has —this is infinitely worse—played ducks and drakes with the mobility of the Army and its capacity to meet any emergency which may arise.
But even this is not all. The announcement was made on 11th February. On 2nd May, we still had not got a decision. The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) may well ask themselves why. I have tried to understand the matter and it seems extremely difficult. Again, I offer my conclusions to the House as the conclusions of a non-expert who has done no more than spend a little time on the subject. If I am wrong, I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me specific answers and put me right.
This aircraft, about which the announcement was made to the House fifteen months ago, has had three different lengths. Short Bros, announced its length as 132 ft. in October, 1958, as 148 ft., in March, 1959, and, in June or July last year when I was doing my own work after the announcement, the length was 136 ft.
Again, even that is not the whole story. When I make inquiries in informed quarters, I am told that it is a matter of astonishment that the claims

made for this aircraft not by Short Bros, and Harland—I do not blame that concern—but by the Minister are regarded as quite fantastic, not only inside the aircraft industry but even by the technical staff of the Air Ministry. I am told that the Air Ministry advisers openly challenged the statements made about the possibility of flights in 1960. We now know that no flights will take place in 1960.
We know even a little more about this matter. Even on the eve of this decision, inquiries were being made in the United States, through the British Joint Services Mission in Washington, to have a look at comparable American aircraft which are so vastly better as even to defy comparison. If hon. Members doubt what I say, I will tell them the name of the member of the British Joint Services Mission in Washington who made formal inquiry. It was Mr. Douglas Robson. I make this statement because again the House ought to be aware of the serious nature of this decision if it is continued, not only for the Army, but for the defences of this country as a whole.
Let me repeat that I have the utmost sympathy with the hon. Members who represent Belfast constituencies, with the workers in their constituencies and all those whose livelihood depends on the prosperity of Short Bros. and Harland. But they ought to learn. They are not serving the interests of their constituents in encouraging the Government, particularly the present Minister of Civil Aviation, whose obstinacy and infinite capacity to maintain a wrong decision up to the point of his getting the "sack" are now recognised on an international basis in this piece of nonsense. What is wanted in Short Bros. and Harland is a piece of successful equipment so that the skill of the workers in Belfast can be used to further their prosperity and serve the national interest.
I regret that this aspect of the problem centred around Blue Streak. I would never have approached the Blue Streak problem nor this problem in terms of wasted money. I do not play golf, but I understand that no sensible golfer ever bases his game on the possibility of holing in one. A person holes in one once in a lifetime, and then it is by accident. But the policy of the right hon.


Gentleman, when he was Minister of Defence, was based on the calculation that he could bring off Blue Streak and the Britannic, a double event which could be measured only in terms of light years because the chances are so astronomical.
I will give hon. Members a couple of very simple figures. The total amount of the United States' defence budget for 1961 is 41,000 million dollars. The amount spent on missiles—and I will convert it into sterling—is £1,893 million, a sum larger than the whole of our defence budget. The amount they spend on aircraft is £2,320 million. This is some 50 per cent. in excess of our budget.
If sums like that are being spent, they are being spent because there is no certainty. One has to pick several horses at the start of a race and then hope that one of them may pull it off. Therefore, as far as I was concerned Blue Streak was always bound to fail. I say without any arrogance but with grave humility that, having seen the 1957 White Paper, I could sit back and be absolutely certain about that. I was alone on these benches in my opposition to it on the basis of the 1957 White Paper. This was because of my mathematical genius in being able to add two and two together and get the right answer, and to recognise the answer when I got it. For those reasons, I was absolutely certain that Blue Streak could never be successful.
Nor could the Britannic. I did my homework fifteen months ago and I knew with absolute certain knowledge that this was an obsolete aircraft which was ordered in Northern Ireland for no reasons of defence but because the General Election was pending and the Government wanted to deal with a possible difficult political situation there. Blue Streak was continued for the same reason.
I pay my tribute to the scientists, the technicians and the business executives who produced Blue Streak, for it was a great British technical success, but it was also a military disaster. I pay my tribute to the small number—they were a very small number—who engaged in the production of the Britannic. Again, that is a military disaster, and it is on the military disaster that I lay the emphasis tonight.
The alternative at this stage is for the Government to recognise the facts of life. The Minister of Aviation ought, of course to resign. If he had any decency, he would behave like a Japanese gentleman and go and commit hara-kari. He certainly should never show his face here again in view of what he has done and what he continues to do.
Yet who can point the finger of scorn at any man because he makes a mistake in this field? The dice are loaded against him. One cannot succeed every time with this sort of project. We hear a great amount about the Russian successes, but we do not hear about their failures, and their failures must be just as great as anybody else's.
When I look at the way the Britannic problem has been handled and the way the Blue Streak problem has been handled, I am astonished at the success of British enterprise and am absolutely certain that if the resources which were available in the United States or the Soviet Union were available here they would still not see the way we went for dust. I am sure of it. The tragedy about all these things is that the margin between our success and our failure is to find the will, establish the priorities and then follow them through even when they are politically unpopular.
There are many hon. Members opposite—I would say that there is an increasing number—beginning with the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) and the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), and there are many others, who know full well that I am speaking the truth and that the conception which I am putting to the House is sound and is based upon facts. They know also in their hearts and minds that if this country does not face up to the facts it will sooner or later be not only Blue Streak but catastrophic disaster. One cannot go on with this game throwing away one's limited resources and then relying upon friendly public relations, at which there is no greater champion and master than the Minister of Aviation. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, born to be a plumber, because his leaks are innumerable. Hon. Gentlemen who doubt that should have a look at the Daily Express for 12th February and at the White Paper dated 16th February.


The Daily Express honoured us by giving a direct quotation from the Defence White Paper four days before the White Paper was published. That is not done at a very law level. It is done at Ministerial level. It is done by an interested party. I have a pretty shrewd idea of what goes on.
I do not apologise to hon. Members for keeping them tonight on this very important subject. I do not expect the Government to announce forthwith that they are going to abandon the Britannic, but I will make the prophecy that just as I was sure that the Government's conscription policy would fail and just as I was sure that the Blue Streak would ultimately go, so this will go.
I will tell the House and I am prepared to eat my words if I am wrong. I have proved beyond doubt that the derivation of the Britannic from the Britannia exists only in the Minister's imagination. I will go further and say of his hopes of selling the Britannic in the civilian market that he will sell exactly none. It has no civilian market. As a military instrument, it is useless. There are better-known projects, like the Vickers VC10, all of which could be phased in if there were the will, but the responsibility for this does not rest on this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite have no excuse for not knowing the facts, because none of the information that I have given tonight is not available to them if they only take the trouble. If they do that, they will avoid at least one more major scandal in defence.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I have sat here intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It was a very fine political speech, but I am afraid that his verbosity carried him away. He says that he is mainly interested in the defence needs of this country, but how could we better serve those defence needs than by providing our Services with a plane produced here in the United Kingdom rather than with one, as the hon. Member suggested, built in America?
The hon. Member produced a great number of facts and figures and said that he had done a great deal of research into the comparative payloads and ranges of

the different planes that are available. I have also done some research because I have quite a considerable constituency interest in this plane. After studying the alternative planes available, I have no doubt at all that the Britannic is very much better than any other that is available in the world or any other which, as the hon. Member admitted, would be available within the next five or six years.
The Britannic was based on the Britannia. It is a four-engined turboprop plane and a high-wing rather than a low-wing plane. This is a very necessary modification in a freighter aircraft. It brings considerable advantages. It opens a wide, clear, unobstructed fuselage from front to back with special loading facilities at the back right through to the front which enables all kinds of military equipment to be loaded, from medium-sized tanks to heavy trucks and oil tankers. Even four Whirlwind helicopters can be taken inside the massive fuselage of the Britannic.
It is useless to compare it with a swing-nosed jet aircraft to be built in America. A jet aircraft is a much slimmer, sleeker and faster plane, but it has no fuselage capable of taking the items of military equipment which our forces may require when they are engaged in operations in various parts of the world. We have to fly troops, tanks, and even supporting helicopters to the Middle East and Far East.
I should like to quote some comparative figures relating to the Britannic and contrasting it with some of the planes mentioned by the hon. Member for Dudley. The maximum payload of the Britannic is 84,600 lb. That is a very high payload. It has a fuselage capacity of 11,700 cubic feet. The dimensions inside are over 12 ft. square. The maximum height in the centre of the fuselage is 13½ ft., but nowhere throughout the length of the fuselage is there less clearance than 12 ft. both ways, unobstructed by spars at the bottom or at the side.
Reference was made to the Lockheed. The payload which a C130B will take is 35,000 lb. as opposed to the maximum payload of the Britannic of about 85,000 lb. The maximum range of the Lockheed is 3,000 nautical miles. The


Britannic, varying with the payload, has a range which is considerably greater than that of the Lockheed.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Will the hon. Member give the range with the maximum payload?

Mr. McMaster: The range with maximum payload is 750 nautical miles. If it has a payload of 50,000 lb., which is still considerably larger than that of the Lockheed, it has a range of 2,100 miles. The graph of its payload as against range is considerably better than that of the Lockheed. In addition, the Lockheed has been in production for some time. Over 300 of the planes have been built, and it has been modified and improved, and the present Lockheed is at the end of its development.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member must be reasonably fair. He is making comparisons between the Britannic in five years' time and the Lockheed 130, which is at the end of its tether. He must make comparison between the Lockheed G207, which will be obsolete by the time those aircraft are flying.

Mr. McMaster: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he makes the point that I am trying to make. The Lockheed is clearly at the end of its tether. The Britannic is not at the end of its tether.

Mr. Wigg: What about the delivery date?

Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman will not anticipate my remarks, I will come in a short time to the delivery date. For the moment I am restricting myself to the comparison. I do not accept the delivery figures suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The Lockheed G207 product has a maximum payload of less than 80,000 lbs. In other words, it is about 7,000 lbs. less than that of the Britannic. The fuselage of the G207 has not the same capacity as that of the Britannic. It has not the same clearance, nor can it take the same type of equipment as the Britannic aircraft. Also, the Britannic, which is a turbo-prop and has 20 ft. clearance between each of the engine pods, is capable of development with the use of larger propellers which will place it far and away above the Lockheed, the DC8, or the Boeing 735, which has been referred to tonight.
What are the advantages of the Britannic? The Britannic has very great flexibility as an Army freighter plane. It has a take-off distance of 2,430 ft. In other words, it is capable of taking off from even the smallest temporary airfields.
Comparing the Britannic with larger jet aircraft, one must remember that while jet aircraft have a lower cubic capacity they are also very much heavier planes, weighing half as much again as the Britannic and some of them twice as much. The cost would be equivalently higher, because the cost of a freighter aircraft is directly related to its weight and if the weight of a jet freighter is 50 per cent. higher than that of a Britannic, the cost would be 50 per cent. higher.
The Britannic could be used both as a strategic and tactical freighter. It is capable of carrying not only important items of equipment, such as tanks, but also the ballistic missiles which we have been debating recently, Thor and Jupiter.

Mr. Wigg: Except that they do not exist.

Mr. McMaster: It could also carry other items of equipment which, unfortunately, it is impossible to mention in detail because they are on the secret list.
Its engines are capable of great development and, with new and better engines, not only for military purposes but in the civil market, the Britannic would be capable of reducing air-freight costs considerably. It might reduce air-freight costs by as much as 50 per cent.

Mr. Wigg: I gave my forecast of the number of aircraft which would be sold and I said nil. Will the hon. Gentleman give his estimate of the number which will be sold to the civil market?

Mr. McMaster: That is a question which I would not venture to answer, because I do not have the expert knowledge which, in spite of his protests, the hon. Member has. Certainly the potential of this aircraft for the civil market, with the figures which I have quoted of its range and its capacity, is very much better than that of any other aircraft likely to be produced.
The hon. Member mentioned production dates. I press the Parliamentary Secretary to use all his weight with the Government to see that the contract is


signed expeditiously so that production of the plane can be expedited, but if the contract is signed with reasonable expedition then the plane can be in production in 1964 and not 1965 or 1966 as the hon. Member suggested. The first planes can be flying by the end of 1963 and the plane itself can be in production in 1964.
This plane will be a world-beater and will have a potential as a turbo-prop aircraft which, because of its ease of loading and unloading, its capacity and size and the great economy and power of its engines, is very much more suited to freighter work than is a jet plane.
For those reasons, I add all my weight to opposing all the comments of the hon. Member opposite, comments which can do no good to the aircraft industry in this country and Northern Ireland and to the people who work in Short and Harlands.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the arguments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) are correct, then his criticism should be directed against the lethargy of the Minister, and so should the wrath of the other Members from Northern Ireland.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Hughes: If the arguments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East are so strong, then he should have attacked the Minister with a far greater vehemence than did my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). There is some mystery about this, because according to the hon. Member this is one of the most wonderful aircraft that has ever been produced and it would have solved, or partially solved, the unemployment problem in Belfast. For two reasons the Government stand condemned, so there can be no excuse for the Government.
I suspect that, behind this mystery, there is something that demands a greater measure of public inquiry and investigation. If the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member opposite, then there is surely

a demand for an inquiry. I suspect that this is only one of a series of scandals connected with the aircraft production industry and the Ministry of Aviation. I would like to see not only an inquiry into the financial and military implications of Blue Streak and of the Britannic, but also into the Swift. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. I am not arguing in a partisan manner at all. I have been arguing about waste on military aircraft under both Governments.
I would like to see a Select Committee investigating the whole range of how much money has been spent on aircraft which have become obsolete and which have been started since we came to the conclusion that it was necessary to enter into an arms race with the Soviet Union. If a fraction of this money which has been spent on missiles and military aircraft had been put into civil aircraft and the development of our civil aviation, we would now have had an asset of advantage to the people of this country.
An enormous amount of money— whether tens or hundreds or thousands of millions of pounds, I do not know—has been wasted on military aircraft and is to be wasted on missiles. When we talk about our programmes being continued until 1965 and into the next decade, and when we are told that we are to invest such a large amount of our national wealth in this completely futile attempt to compete with the Soviet Union or the United States, then the time has come to say that it should stop.
I suggest that both from Belfast and from Dudley we have had a prima facie case for a thorough-going inquiry into the ramifications of this industry. The right hon. Gentleman, who was formerly Minister of Supply, knows something of the technological progress in the Soviet Union and of the new progress that is coming along there. It is completely futile to imagine that we can ever take part in this kind of arms race—either in aircraft or ballistic missiles—with any prospect of success. I suggest that the lesson to be learned from the present situation is that it is time to call a halt. We have had the Blue Streak scandal, the Britannic scandal and the Swift scandal —and I suspect that there are many more unsavoury scandals lurking behind the scenes somewhere.
My hon. Friend has put a case which is very difficult for the Minister to answer. This matter should be pressed perpetually upon the Minister and the Government until the policy is changed.

10.6 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: It is clear that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did not brief himself on this subject, whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) went to great trouble. I only wish that he had taken his researches back a year or two, when the Labour Government were in power. During the period of the trouble at Abadan we could not even borrow American aircraft. The troops were transported by aircraft carrier and took 14 days to get through the Mediterranean. The party opposite has something to answer for in respect of that period, and if the hon. Member talks about inquiries and scandals I would remind him that there is plenty to inquire about on his own Front Bench in relation to defence matters.
There are one or two aspects of the Britannic aircraft situation about which I should like to be reassured. Fifteen months ago we were told that the order was to be placed, but the contract has still not been signed. Last week the Parliamentary Secretary gave us a reason and talked about the question of costing. I have been connected with the aircraft industry for thirty years, and I should like to know how many modifications have been asked for by the Air Ministry since the announcement was first made. If we knew that, we might be nearer the truth of the matter.
Although the Government hold the majority of the shares, in the meantime Shorts are financing this contract themselves, and it seems unfair that the firm should be supplying the money. I should like to know whether any progress payments are being made in the meantime. The former Minister of Supply told us last year that the airlines required an aircraft of this type. Ten aircraft means nothing at all. If development costs were spread over that number of aircraft they would be astronomical. What are the civil prospects for this aircraft when it is in production? Will the Government place a further order, to bring the number of aircraft up to twenty?
Now that we are going back to the manned bomber—the V-bomber with the Skybolt—there is a greater necessity than ever for this type of transport aircraft, if it is available in the next year or two. In fact, we need such an aircraft today. I hesitate to suggest that we should buy foreign aircraft, but I would suggest that we try to hire a dozen or 20 American aircraft for two or three years in order to ensure that we have the lift available to move our troops about and so give them mobility.
If the V-bombers are to carry the Sky-bolt, I should like to know whether turbo-propeller aircraft are fast enough to move the equipment and men to service the V-bombers when they are dispersed throughout the world. From the economical point of view, the turbo-propeller aircraft may eventually come into fashion for civil use. Trans-Canada ordered another three Vanguards last week, and when this aircraft is in operation I believe it will prove so economical that people will want to travel in it. They will quite happily travel cheaply and safely at 410 m.p.h., as opposed to 600 m.p.h. The Government may be right in this respect, but I am unhappy about the number of aircraft ordered. It does not make sense to order only ten aircraft.
I have a great regard for the management of Shorts and the people in the factory, but there is no doubt that when one is developing a modern aircraft today one needs a tremendous staff. One cannot put on 100, 150, or 250 draughtsmen. One needs a thousand draughtsmen. A big effort is needed and one wonders whether it would not be advisable for Shorts, whom we know are controlled by the Government, if not to amalgamate, at least to work in partnership with one of the big airframe groups, either Vickers or Hawker Siddeley, and put their full weight behind the project to get it out in the shortest possible time.
I am certain that it will not be flying for a long time even if Shorts do everything that they can. I know that the firm is doing its best, and I ask my hon. Friend to represent to his right hon. Friend that more effort should be made to help the project. The sooner it is produced, the sooner we shall have a transport aircraft, and the sooner we shall have something to sell in foreign markets. It could be a good commercial proposition if it were not delayed for too long.

Mrs. Patricia McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this case it would be of great help if a larger number of aircraft were ordered so that we could get on with in it a bigger way and have a greater possibility of making it an economic success?

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is dead right. The hon. Gentleman says that development costs need to be spread over 300 aircraft, but it is not a question of 300. One could spread them satisfactory over 100 with the cost of labour in this country. If 100 were produced, that would probably be an economic number, or maybe even 75.
I hope my hon. Friend will realise that we are not happy about the way in which this project has progressed. I should like to see more decisions taken, and more ginger put behind the whole effort, because at the moment it is dragging on. An order for ten for this vital requirement for our services is insufficient. We must be able to move men and equipment rapidly—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Where to?

Sir A. V. Harvey: To different parts of the Commonwealth, and in support of our obligations in N.A.T.O. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in N.A.T.O., but the rest of Europe does. I ask my hon. Friend to see what can be done to get behind this problem, because the House will not be happy while this matter drags on.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has done a public service not only for the defence of this country but for the well-being of Northern Ireland, and we share the desire that the work will be carried on there.
I shall be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary if he will answer the questions that have been asked. The most important one seems to be, when will this plane be available? Why is it that we have lost two years in its development? Does he expect that it will be in operation by 1964 at the earliest? My view is that it will be rather later than that. How many will be ordered? What are the prospects

for civilian use? Finally, will he say whether the contract has been settled, and what the cost will be?
It is no good dealing with all the wonderful intentions of what this plane will do. We are dealing with realities, and I want to know what stage it is in and when it will come to our aid in the transport world.

10.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I am glad that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised this important matter, together with Blue Streak, Jordan, Eton, the Bow Group, and Northern Ireland. In the short time available to me I will try to answer the many questions that he asked on the subject of the Britannic SC 5, now known more frequently as the Britannic 3A.
This debate gives me the opportunity to clear up a number of misapprehensions which the hon. Gentleman has voiced from time to time, and which evidently have not been entirely eliminated by repetition of the facts at Question Time. I should like first to clear up the history of the project and to try to straighten out the hon. Gentleman on the matter of dates. First, there has been no delay in the advertised programme. I hope that what I have to say will also answer the question put by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).
On 11th April this year, and not for the first time, the hon. Member for Dudley alleged that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, then the Minister of Defence, made his first announcement on 11th February, 1959, he said that the aircraft would fly in 1961 and that it had been indicated that it would be in operation by 1962.
On 6th July last year the hon. Member, in a supplementary question to the Minister, said that the Minister of Defence had
made a statement that the prototype would fly in 1961 and that it would be in production at the end of 1961 or 1962. We now know that that timetable is out of date."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1959; Vol. 608. c. 886.]
I should like to make it clear that it is on the record that the hon. Member's recollections are not based on the facts.


No Minister has said at any time that the Britannic would fly in 1961. On 11th February, 1959, my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) put a supplementary question as follows:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Blackburn 107 could be in the air in five years? Can he say whether the new Britannia will be flying within the same period of time?
That is, within five years from 1959. My right hon. Friend replied,
Yes, roughly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1164.]
That seems to be a very fair estimate.
On 29th June, 1959, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the then Minister of Supply said,
The prototype should be flying in 1962 and is expected to enter service in 1964."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 6.]
That, broadly speaking, is the timetable.

Mr. Wigg: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Aviation is much too smart to use those words himself, but if the hon. Member will be kind enough to read the Guardian of 12th February and The Times and other papers he will find in each case the same dates, given on the authority of the company.

Mr. Rippon: The only excuse, and in my view a very thin excuse, for the way in which the hon. Member has repeated statements which he knows to be inaccurate is that he can look to certain Press reports which he himself admits are not inspired by the Minister and which were put out at a very early stage—

Mr. Wigg: They are inspired by the Minister.

Mr. Rippon: —and before the detailed specifications had been agreed. It is quite wrong of him to found an allegation of the kind which he makes against my right hon. Friend on the basis of those newspaper cuttings. He has said in the House time after time that the Minister made a statement on 11th February, 1959, to that effect when it is perfectly clear to anyone who reads HANSARD that he did not.

Mr. Wigg: He did.

Mr. Rippon: The second allegation which the hon. Member tends to make is that the order was not placed on military considerations but on economic or financial grounds. I would say clearly that it was decided that the Britannic was the best of the designs which were submitted —and that which was likely to be first in the field—to meet our military requirements. Following detailed studies of long-term military requirements in transport in 1956–57, the Government examined some eighteen months ago alternative suggestions for a prototype strategic freighter to be introduced into service in the mid-sixties. This examination was made against the background that although it was clear that for some considerable time the main strategic transport aircraft for carrying troops and freight over long distances would remain, as far as we were concerned, the Britannia, this aircraft was unsuitable for the transport of certain bulky items of equipment. That is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) referred, in particular. It was also apparent that additional large freighter aircraft would be needed.
Against that background, the Government examined the proposals for the supply of a long-range freighter aircraft which were submitted during 1958 by a number of aircraft manufacturers. From the operational viewpoint the main considerations which had to be taken into account were capacity and scope of pay-load, ease of loading, range—taking into account the various kinds of payload —length of runway required and the operating costs. There was obviously the important question as to the probable time scale of development and production and the cost likely to be involved.
I have said that operational characteristics were not the sole considerations, but they were the main considerations which had to be taken into account. Economic, industrial and commercial considerations also had to be weighed, and obviously the Government had to have in mind from the outset that it would be a great advantage if the military aircraft could also be developed for commercial use. The Britannic was selected to meet the R.A.F.'s long-range freighter requirement following submissions by a number of aircraft manufacturers. Following the announcement


which was made on 11th February, 1959, further studies in consultation with the design staffs of Short Bros, and Harland indicated that certain design changes would make possible considerable improvements, such as an increased wing span, the widening of the engine centres and the substitution of the developed Rolls-Royce Tyne 12 for the Tyne 11 engine.

Mr. Wigg: In fact, a new aircraft.

Mr. Rippon: These changes not only have an advantage from the military operational point of view but also make it possible for the design to be stretched by further developments in the light of technological progress. They were designed to make possible lower operating costs and thus improve, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield indicated that they might do, the prospect of civil sales. All that can be achieved within the time scale to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield particularly asked what modifications had been made. I have time to list the main ones only. The main ones were the increase in wing span by 16 ft., brought about by the addition of the new centre portion. Secondly, the engine centres were moved further apart so that larger propellers can be fitted later if it is desired to take advantage of improved versions of the Tyne engine. Thirdly, the maximum all-up weight was increased to 218,000 lb. and the maximum fuel capacity to 81,000 lb.

Mr. Wigg: The only thing which remained was the name.

Mr. Rippon: This enabled the Britannic 3A to meet the Air Staff requirement of a range of 3,600 nautical miles with a payload of 30,000 lb., with variations according to mileage and payload.
The hon. Member for Dudley says that this aircraft is not a development of the Britannia, that it is a new aircraft. I would say that the completely new components on the Britannic are the fuselage, the wing centre section, the main undercarriage, and the engine installation. The remaining sections of the wing, the nose, undercarriage, fin, rudder, elevator, tail planes and flight deck are closely related to the Britannia.
Probably an indication of how closely it is related to the Britannia is found in the fact that it will be possible to make extensive use of only slightly modified Britannia jigs and tools, which represents a great saving. It is also significant that the Air Registration Board is willing to waive many of the tests on the Britannic wing for the reason that it regards it as similar in many respects to the Britannia wing for the Board's purpose.
I would say in answer to the hon. Member for Dudley that the Britannic design has not been derived from the American aircraft, although the general shape and function are similar, The hon. Gentleman had a lot to say about American aircraft. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East has already answered some of those points. The hon. Member for Dudley referred particularly to the Lockheed C 130 series, particularly the 130A and 130B known as the Hercules. It is clear that the range and payload of the Britannic 3A is superior to that of the Hercules. It is not therefore fair to make a comparison between these two aircraft. It has also been compared by some people to the Super Hercules—the Lockheed development of the earlier C 130A and B, but that is smaller in capacity than the Britannic. It is still a paper project and one for which I am told there is no customer yet.
There is the C 133 Douglas Cargo-master which is somewhat larger, but it is quite ridiculous for the hon. Member against that background to talk of American aircraft being vastly superior to ours. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, it is a curious argument to come from the hon. Member for Dudley that it is better to buy an American aircraft even though we have one of our own which meets our own requirements and which can be produced in the time scale that we want. I agree that there is much more to be said during an interim period for a proposal to hire, but there is nothing whatever to be said for the proposal to buy.
The hon. Member for Dudley changed his tack again and said that it would have been much better to have bought an American aircraft than to relieve unemployment in Northern Ireland. He said that he had the utmost sympathy with the representatives of Northern


Ireland, but that it was quite wrong to choose an aircraft, not on its merits, but in relation to the economic situation. I think that is what he was saying. Here is another example of where hon. Members opposite are so much at variance. The then Minister of Supply received this telegram on 3rd January, 1959:
Following talks with workers here I very much hope Britannic freighter contract will be given to Shorts, thus preventing already serious unemployment position being greatly aggravated.
That telegram was signed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I knew of the existence of this telegram, and I was utterly sure that if my case were sound the hon. Gentleman would produce it. Knowing that the telegram was there, I still say— Leader of the Opposition or not, and I have opposed him before and shall oppose him again—that the consideration must be the best for this country and not one of political expediency.

Mr. Rippon: I leave this as one of the very many matters on which the Opposition are divided. That is perhaps as far as we can take it. I think I have said enough to make it clear that the main reason for adopting this aircraft was a military one, but even supposing that one of the factors taken into account was the need to alleviate unemployment in Northern Ireland, I should not have thought that it was something to be criticised by hon. Members opposite. It is perfectly clear that we can produce in our own country an aircraft which meets our requirements.

Mr. Chetwynd: We made it perfectly clear at the time the decision was taken that if there was a better aircraft and it did not originate at Shorts, there was no earthly reason why it should not be sub-contracted to Northern Ireland to provide employment.

Mr. Rippon: I have made it clear that the Britannic was the best available in this field.
I want to refer to the question of the contract, which was not one with which the hon. Member for Dudley was concerned, and therefore I thought it right to deal with it last, although I appreciate that it is extremely important. I do not

think I can add very much to what was said in answer to a very recent Question —only on Monday, in fact. It is appreciated that what we have in mind is a fixed price contract, and that necessarily entails a great deal of work in relation to an aircraft which will cost well over £1 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As I have said, we hope that these contract negotiations will soon be completed, but if unexpected difficulties arise, my right hon. Friend would consider the point which has been raised about the desirability of an interim contract.
I think that the important thing—and this answers the question of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees—is that we are assured by the company that there is no hold-up because of the contract negotiations. Some five hundred design staff and technicians are already employed on the project. The whole effort is building up according to plan, and a start has been made on tooling for production.
In conclusion, we expect the Britannic to be a most valuable addition to Transport Command's strategic airlift resources, and we also hope that the company will be able to obtain its share of the world market in civil freighters. I cannot, of course, say what the company's prospects are. The company can state that better than I can, but it is confident of the future of this aircraft and it clearly believes in it, in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East believes in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has himself said that he believes that it has great commercial possibilities.
One other point I might add in relation to this aircraft. It will be the first military transport aircraft designed to have automatic blind landing facilities, of which an improved version is being developed, and I hope that that system will be widely adopted for civil operation. I can assure the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and the House that the Government will take all possible steps to bring this aircraft into service as soon as possible and within the time scale which has already been announced.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.